UKC

Is the flailing ISS an apt metaphor for the West?

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 broken spectre 28 Jun 2024

Two astronauts are currently stuck up aboard the ISS. A Russian satellite mysteriously exploded causing the crew to take evasive action and a superbug has evolved up there!

They have a plan though, the egotist billionaire Musk has been tasked with towing the thing into the ocean.

33
In reply to broken spectre:

Unsure as to which aspect of this factual post catalysed a downvote - admittedly, it reads like a condensed season of Red Dwarf but it's all facts - truth being far stranger than fiction. Again...

21
 Tom Valentine 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

You can prove Musk is a billionaire but calling him an egotist is not really a fact.

28
 Luke90 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

You're just trolling, right? I'm going to bite anyway because I'm bored.

> Two astronauts are currently stuck up aboard the ISS.

Probably the only halfway legitimate entry on the list. But a failure of Boeing and their new crew vehicle rather than the ISS. And "stuck" is a little melodramatic. They're extending the stay to assess the risks from complications in a brand new vehicle undergoing testing. They might well conclude that it's safe to proceed. If they don't, they'll find a different way to bring them down.

> A Russian satellite mysteriously exploded causing the crew to take evasive action

How is the explosion of a Russian satellite a reflection on the West or the ISS?

> a superbug has evolved up there

No, a superbug has been found up there that already exists on Earth. "Superbug" is an over-dramatic term anyway and as far as I'm aware this one isn't particularly concerning. It evolved up there only in the sense that it already existed and had the antibacterial resistance down on the surface and kept mutating while up there because that's just what bugs do.

> They have a plan though, the egotist billionaire Musk has been tasked with towing the thing into the ocean.

A planned retirement after 30 years of service is hardly a failure! Towing it down rather than leaving it in orbit to gradually break up and cause massive debris problems is the responsible course of action. And much as I hate Musk as a person, SpaceX are doing remarkable things and are obvious candidates for the job.

Post edited at 17:50
 Offwidth 28 Jun 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

>calling him an egotist is not really a fact.

No, it's an understatement

4
 wintertree 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

It’s a ludicrously expensive boondoggle whose design was compromised by the politically compromised design of the space shuttle system.

It’s going to be outclassed immensely by commercial stations with inflatable modules launched on reusable rockets.  NASA pioneered and abandoned inflatable modules, Bigelow proved their endurance in orbit and on the ISS but had very strange leadership and since their patent licensed from NASA expired others have gone public with modules.

SpaceX’s “Starship” has more pressurised volume than the whole ISS, will launch on a reusable booster and can come back down again.

Re-entry is going to be spectacular.  

1
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> You can prove Musk is a billionaire but calling him an egotist is not really a fact.

Anyone with the capacity to accrue over one billion pounds will be pathologically egotistical. Fact.

19
 Pedro50 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

> Anyone with the capacity to accrue over one billion pounds will be pathologically egotistical. Fact.

Bollox. JK Rowling is not pathologically egotistical. She is a sane rational intelligent person with sensible views on gender.

Post edited at 18:36
33
In reply to Pedro50:

> She is a sane rational intelligent person with sensible views on gender.

A sane rational egotist with sensible views on gender, possibly.

If you ask me (which you haven't), hanging on to north of a billion pounds is implicitly egotistical. You're in a position to ease the suffering a a sizeable population but you're actively choosing not to because you like being a billionairess. That's ego, that is. We all have one...

26
 Pedro50 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

I hear she makes substantial charitable donations. 

3
 RedFive 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

Fun fact (which I’m sure many will have seen before but worth repeating)

It's 80,000 BC.
You are immortal.
The world is still frozen in an ice age. You decide to save $10,000 EVERY DAY, never spending a cent.
82,021 years later, it's 2021.

You still don't have as much money as Elon Musk.

2
 Michael Hood 28 Jun 2024
In reply to Pedro50:

> I hear she makes substantial charitable donations. 

How big is substantial? If you're worth a billion you can afford to donate hundreds of millions to worthy causes without it significantly affecting your lifestyle

So what %age of her wealth is she donating or at least getting into a charitable trust that will donate in future as it assesses which causes are worthy? 10%, 20% - stingy, 50% - okayish, 70%+ - laudable

Edit: it's just not the same as "normal" working people, it would significantly affect most of our lifestyles if we donated 20% rather than 10%, but billionaires, nope.

Post edited at 19:24
2
 wintertree 28 Jun 2024
In reply to RedFive:

Your caveman has $299.25 Bn in cash which is more than Musk’s $220 Bn net worth now (discounting interest, inflation and the slowing of the earth’s rotation changing the number of days/year over such timescales).

So your caveman is richer.  In fact he’s richer than the numbers suggest, as most of Musk’s net worth comes from shares, and he’s in a situation where if he tried to cash them all out their value would likely plummet.  I imagine he has $1m to $20m in cash and rapidly cashable assets, and he can probably borrow up to $0.1bn on short notice which still puts him in a supremely privileged position, but your caveman is far, far richer in cash terms.

You said musk was richer in 2021 than the caveman and he just about was, not now he’s about $80 Bn poorer than the caveman but he’s not lost $80 Bn in cash in those last 3 years.  Paper value evaporated for musk which goes to show the difference beteeen net and cash worth.  I know which I’d rather have!

Given how Tesla has blown their early mover advantage under Musk’s governance and the direction of X/Twitter, his net worth is likely only going down soon. 

Post edited at 19:46
4
 montyjohn 28 Jun 2024
In reply to RedFive:

You really should have put that money in a globally diverse index fund.

In reply to broken spectre:

Factual or not, you have misunderstood everything in your original post. 

Starliner's shitshow is Boeing's shitshow.

The ISS shifts its orbit to avoid debris all the time. That's not news.

No idea what you're on about with superbugs.

The other story you've latched onto is that they've decided who will develop the system that deorbits it at the end of its life. It was always going to have an end of life, and letting it randomly decay and land... somewhere... isn't a great plan. Might want to start thinking about that a little ahead of time, no? Maybe when we've had a couple decades of advances in spaceflight since its inception, but still have time to develop a vehicle capable of doing it in control. Which, actually, is quite a big ask, for reasons you can read about if so inclined.

 Neil Williams 28 Jun 2024
In reply to Pedro50:

> She is a sane rational intelligent person with sensible views on gender.

The abuse she gives out wouldn't be tolerated if it were based on race, sexuality etc.  There are matters for debate on gender vs. sex (because it's one of those "liberal paradoxes" in a way), but she takes the way she speaks to people far, far too far.  You can disagree with someone without wilfully seeking to upset them, e.g. directly referring to trans women as men.  If she simply wanted to differentiate them from those born as women, she'd use the term "trans women"; her use of "men" is deliberate antagonism and I can't stand that.

Post edited at 19:49
25
In reply to montyjohn:

> You really should have put that money in a globally diverse index fund.

With hindsight I'd recommend Blackrock...


 wintertree 28 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

I’m doing a fire sale on replacement batteries for sarcasm detectors…

1
 Neil Williams 28 Jun 2024
In reply to wintertree:

There are too many people who genuinely think that (though I suppose UKC wouldn't be a likely place to find that many of them knowing its general left bias) to really be able to identify sarcasm on that matter without a smiley!

1
 Brass Nipples 28 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

They are stuck because of Boeing not the ISS

In reply to Brass Nipples:

> They are stuck because of Boeing not the ISS

Don't tell me the door fell off...

Anyhow - Sorry for the disingenuous nature of OP! I let off steam by gently poking fun at stuff (at myself too!) and I'm not 100% convinced this is entirely a good thing; some could call it trolling-lite!

Cheers for putting up with it anyway and I'll try to reign it in. Typically (and paradoxically perhaps), my personality is not quite as forthright in reality!

1
 deepsoup 28 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> .. (though I suppose UKC wouldn't be a likely place to find that many of them knowing its general left bias) ..

I'd have thought so too not so long ago, but the 'Green party' thread revealed plenty.

 seankenny 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The abuse she gives out wouldn't be tolerated if it were based on race, sexuality etc.  There are matters for debate on gender vs. sex (because it's one of those "liberal paradoxes" in a way), but she takes the way she speaks to people far, far too far.  You can disagree with someone without wilfully seeking to upset them, e.g. directly referring to trans women as men. 


But if you believe gender is a regressive social construct and that in many cases (particularly prisons, health facilities or sport) only sex is important, then simply man or woman is the only description that counts. It’s a description of reality rather than a value judgement. 
 

> If she simply wanted to differentiate them from those born as women, she'd use the term "trans women";

But in the GC viewpoint, when it comes to, for example, prisons, there is no need for differentiation as it’s simply irrelevant. The GC view is that you’re the one making the category error. 

> her use of "men" is deliberate antagonism and I can't stand that.

Or it’s an accurate portrayal of reality as JKR sees it, but it’s much easier for her detractors to claim bad faith rather than explain why gender is more important than sex. It’s also a boon for progressive men who want to put a clever, successful woman down whilst proudly portraying their progressiveness. 

14
 spenser 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

She also has some very ableist views about the capabilities of autistic people which are frankly disappointing given that the entire Harry Potter series is about fighting people who would attack others over a characteristic they couldn't choose (i.e. purity of your magical lineage).

3
 lowersharpnose 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

The abuse she gives out...

Would you please give an example. 

1
 Andsomemore 29 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

> If you ask me (which you haven't), hanging on to north of a billion pounds is implicitly egotistical. You're in a position to ease the suffering a a sizeable population but you're actively choosing not to because you like being a billionairess. That's ego, that is. We all have one...

I would suggest going on to YouTube and checking out Elon's talks about what his mission is with SpaceX.  

The plan, whether it sticks to schedule or not, is potentially one of the greatest acts in the planet's history to safeguard life on Earth by ensuring we are interplanetary. Should anything happen to Earth, Musk is putting in place the tools to ensure we aren't solely dependent on it, confined to a sinking ship, wishing we had installed lifeboats earlier.

He's doing a much better job of that than Boeing, or anyone else. Deserves every dime of his billions in my opinion.

12
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> But if you believe gender is a regressive social construct and that in many cases (particularly prisons, health facilities or sport) only sex is important, then simply man or woman is the only description that counts. It’s a description of reality rather than a value judgement. 

However when you're making your point it is necessary to consider peoples' sensitivities and be kind.  We are talking about people here - people who have a far harder time than just about any other minority (which is why I believe the LGBT+ community generally embraces trans rights).

She fails to do that (as does the above sentence).  You can at least use the term "biological woman" to pick out that you're referring specifically to the birth sex.

There is terminology that can be used that won't cause offence, and these people know full well what it is.  Wilfully not using it is deliberately causing offence and is therefore abusive.

Post edited at 10:13
18
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> Would you please give an example. 

Directly referring to a specific trans woman as a man is abusive - it is said specifically to cause offence.  She does that all the time on Twitter.  Feel free to look up your own example.

That female athlete with a bee in her bonnet about Parkrun does the same.

The appropriate terminology is well known, and wilfully using the incorrect terminology when you know the correct terminology is just the same as using perjorative terminology for a gay person or a Black person.  It's deliberate abuse and must be called out as such.

The debate on the complex principles behind the issue (e.g. how to deal with trans children) can be had civilly and without causing abuse, and must be had in that way.

Post edited at 10:13
22
 seankenny 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> However when you're making your point it is necessary to consider peoples' sensitivities and be kind.  We are talking about people here - people who have a far harder time than just about any other minority (which is why I believe the LGBT+ community generally embraces trans rights).

> She fails to do that (as does the above sentence).  You can at least use the term "biological woman" to pick out that you're referring specifically to the birth sex.

Women and men are references only to biology. Gender is a construct I don’t believe in, in fact I believe it’s regressive and itself an unkind thing that limits human beings. But I’m not coercive about that - you’re free to believe in it and talk about it however you see fit. The admonition to “be kind” has seen biological men (the only sort) try to remove the rights of biological women (again, the only sort), reduce free speech and be intimidating, a reality I strongly doubt you have any interest in dealing with (though I’d be gratified if you tried). 

Be kind? 
https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-politicians-and-jk-rowling-voice-anger-...

> There is terminology that can be used that won't cause offence, and these people know full well what it is.  Wilfully not using it is deliberately causing offence and is therefore abusive.

You’re asking people to pretend. To disavow their view of reality. That’s an intensely coercive act that has nothing to do with letting men who believe they are women (or vice versa) live full and meaningful lives. It’s as if Christians said the only way they can exist fairly in society is if everyone else never mentions atheism.

Post edited at 11:02
10
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

The thing is, you know the terminology that can be used without causing offence, and as such you're deliberately using other terminology, as such you're being abusive.

That's how it is.

I recognise the paradoxes with regard to the rights of cis women, and as such am happy to have a discussion on these things, but do ask that respectful terminology is used when talking to or about trans people.

I'm not willing to discuss it with people who wilfully use terminology in this context that they are fully aware trans people will find offensive, and so with regret our discussion on the matter ends here, but that I guess sadly @wintertree I wasn't wrong in my original reply.

Post edited at 11:18
15
 Niall_H 29 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Gender is a construct I don’t believe in

So, if you have to refer to someone with a pronoun or a gendered descriptor ("Sean over there, he's the chap you're looking for" v's "Sean over there, she's the woman you're looking for" [1]) do you insist of a physical check of the person before choosing which one to use?  You must enliven parties!


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Young , perhaps?

7
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Niall_H:

Someone who is really bothered or unsure could easily use gender neutral language ("they are over there") or their name.

Someone who deliberately uses male language for someone they can see to be a trans woman is just being insulting, and totally unnecessarily so.

7
 Luke90 29 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Women and men are references only to biology. Gender is a construct I don’t believe in, in fact I believe it’s regressive and itself an unkind thing that limits human beings.

The way that's coming across to me at the moment is that you've found a way of justifying cruelty to trans people that sounds kind of principled and progressive, and in fact weaponises the language of queer communities against them. Does your radical free-thinking rejection of the construct of gender have any particular consequences other than enshrining your right to offend and exclude trans people?

Please do correct me if I'm misreading your position, I genuinely do hope that there's more to your point.

15
 seankenny 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I recognise the paradoxes with regard to the rights of cis women, and as such am happy to have a discussion on these things, but do ask that respectful terminology is used when talking to or about trans people.

Okay, let’s talk about this. Debate is good, no? Understand others’ views is a worthwhile activity, no? How do you see those “paradoxes” as best being resolved?

1
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Okay, let’s talk about this. Debate is good, no? Understand others’ views is a worthwhile activity, no? How do you see those “paradoxes” as best being resolved?

One good option is gender neutral changing and toilet facilities with floor to ceiling, properly lockable cubicles so everyone, whoever they are, can have proper privacy and safety.  I prefer this over getting my bits out in front of other men at the gym or pool, to be honest, and in a school context open changing rooms are a hive of bullying (and probably dodgy teachers, at least back in the 80s).

Another thing that can help is fighting homophobia and properly educating on all the issues and making sure people know from an early age that being gay is just how you are and is fine (there have been cases of children thinking they were trans but later realising they were gay).

Another is to break down societal barriers so there's no stigma to being a feminine man or a masculine woman.

Of course those will only deal with some people' situations, as some people will still simply know they're in the wrong body.  But haven't we for a long time had what we used to call "sex changes" (very old term!) for those people, which wasn't an issue until faux women's rights campaigners like Rowling came along?

In short, the fewer things society does by gender, the fewer people will see the need to transition.  Let's just have people, and let's let them be what they want in society.  Then provide properly (ie medically) for the remaining people who genuinely feel they're in the wrong body.

Post edited at 12:26
4
 Brass Nipples 29 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

How in earth did this get from the ISS to a completely non related discussion.  Someone too lazy to create a thread for the latter stuff?

2
 seankenny 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> One good option is gender neutral changing and toilet facilities with floor to ceiling, properly lockable cubicles so everyone, whoever they are, can have proper privacy and safety.  I prefer this over getting my bits out in front of other men at the gym or pool, to be honest, and in a school context open changing rooms are a hive of bullying (and probably dodgy teachers, at least back in the 80s).

Agreed. But unfortunately this will always only be a partial solution.

> Another thing that can help is fighting homophobia and properly educating on all the issues and making sure people know from an early age that being gay is just how you are and is fine (there have been cases of children thinking they were trans but later realising they were gay).

Also completely agree. There have been cases of children undergoing very difficult medical treatment for this very reason which frankly is extremely concerning.

> Another is to break down societal barriers so there's no stigma to being a feminine man or a masculine woman.

Aka “gender is a construct”! There should be absolutely no stigma to this at all. 

> Of course those will only deal with some people' situations, as some people will still simply know they're in the wrong body.  But haven't we for a long time had what we used to call "sex changes" (very old term!) for those people, which wasn't an issue until

Of course gender reassignment surgery should still be an option for some people who really need it to relieve their distress and unhappiness. But again, it’s possible to think this without the mystical “gendered soul” stuff. You’re free to believe that, of course, but I am free to not believe it, and to speak and think accordingly. Either way, it has no bearing on whether this surgery should be available to people who need it. 
 

> faux women's rights campaigners like Rowling came along?

And you were doing so well. Let’s gloss over this example of a man defining feminism shall we? 

> In short, the fewer things society does by gender, the fewer people will see the need to transition.  Let's just have people, and let's let them be what they want in society.  Then provide properly (ie medically) for the remaining people who genuinely feel they're in the wrong body.

Agree to a point. I would say “things society does by sex” because that is the defining characteristic for me. If you’re a man (or biological man, as I must caveat in order to get a hearing) who believes he’s a woman and wants to wear a dress as an expression of that, crack on, go for it, but for some of us that is an irrelevant consideration in some circumstances. 

8
 plyometrics 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Brass Nipples:

Was about to post the same. UKC at its tangential best.  

 Tom Valentine 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

For someone who's so concerned about people being insulted by word choice, your comment about "dodgy teachers"  could be found extremely offensive by a particular cohort in the profession, especially since you narrow it down to those who were working in the eighties.

6
 Lankyman 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Brass Nipples:

> How in earth did this get from the ISS to a completely non related discussion.  Someone too lazy to create a thread for the latter stuff?

It's descended into a typical UKC willy waving borefest popular with those whose main aim is to get the last word in

5
 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Because safeguarding and DBS checks weren't a thing then.  Also it was when I was at school.

It's only insulting to any teacher who was actually up to no good, and that insult is very much intended.

Post edited at 19:22
12
 Tom Valentine 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

No, it's insulting to me as a member of that profession in the eighties. One thing you should have learnt by now is that it's not up to you to decide what's insulting or not. Whatever rules apply to talking to or talking about transgender people also apply to other sections of society. And if you are saying that me being insulted by your insinuation means that I was"up to no good" while I was supervising kids getting changed then you had better be ready to make good on your assertion. 

Post edited at 20:07
4
In reply to Lankyman:

More of a decaying orbit than a direct descent. From the ISS to Billionaires to JK Rowling to Gender Politics, the discourse has fragmented into a thousand heated and crazy ideas. The kind of frothing culture rant that should rightly be ditched mid Pacific and bringing the thread full circle is the epitome of how the West can be viewed, which is a shame because it has so much more going for it.

13
 Tom Valentine 29 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

See, if you had just talked about a simple spaceship and not brought evil billionaires into the discussion......

1
 Tom Valentine 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Lankyman:

I think "willy waving" is a hilariously inappropriate metaphor  bearing in mind some of the concerns being expressed and I do hope it was very much intended.

1
 Pedro50 29 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

> More of a decaying orbit than a direct descent. From the ISS to Billionaires to JK Rowling to Gender Politics, the discourse has fragmented into a thousand heated and crazy ideas. The kind of frothing culture rant that should rightly be ditched mid Pacific and bringing the thread full circle is the epitome of how the West can be viewed, which is a shame because it has so much more going for it.

You derailed your own thread, own it.

 Lankyman 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I think "willy waving" is a hilariously inappropriate metaphor

You don't beat about the bush

 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> No, it's insulting to me as a member of that profession in the eighties. One thing you should have learnt by now is that it's not up to you to decide what's insulting or not. Whatever rules apply to talking to or talking about transgender people also apply to other sections of society. And if you are saying that me being insulted by your insinuation means that I was"up to no good" while I was supervising kids getting changed then you had better be ready to make good on your assertion. 

You're making up that insinuation.  It is aimed at those up to no good only.  Assuming, as I do, that you weren't up to no good, it's not aimed at you.

There were dodgy teachers back then (and are now, though probably fewer due to the various safeguards) - it's aimed at them and them only.

I'm a Scout Leader.  I'm not offended by aspersions cast at the ones who were up to no good, because that doesn't include me, and the ones who were up to no good deserve more than a few insults on an obscure loosely climbing related web forum.

This is very, very different to directly calling trans women men with the (alleged) intention to offend, as Rowling does.  Indeed personally whether I'm offended by something or not is pretty much 100% contingent on whether offence was intended.

Post edited at 22:34
6
 wintertree 29 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

Well, this thread has reached nadir faster that any space station ever could…

 Tom Valentine 29 Jun 2024
In reply to wintertree:

Agreed. Should never have taken offence at such a petty slight.

In reply to Pedro50:

> You derailed your own thread, own it.

I de-orbited it.

'derailing' is a terrestrial cliché. Get with the program...

 Michael Hood 30 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

As someone who can describe themselves as a biological terrestrial, I'm offended by your disenfranchising use of extra-terrestrial language that denies my right to return a satellite to earth regardless of whether I have a satellite or not.

2
 wintertree 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> The plan, whether it sticks to schedule or not, is potentially one of the greatest acts in the planet's history to safeguard life on Earth

… which is ironic given his weaponising of Twitter into a platform for bots, trolls and influencers to drive misinformation that’s further eroding the democratic institutions that we need to avoid existential warfare on earth.

2
 seankenny 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> This is very, very different to directly calling trans women men with the (alleged) intention to offend, as Rowling does.  Indeed personally whether I'm offended by something or not is pretty much 100% contingent on whether offence was intended.


If you believe Rowling’s intention is to be offensive for the sake of it then I don’t think you’re really engaging with what she says. For example:

“I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

“But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.”

That is a clearly thought through position. It’s a reason for what she says based on her values and experiences, not just bigotry for the sake of it.

It is of course easier - much easier - to spit out accusations of simple offence, because then you don’t have to deal with the substance of what she says. Such as the following:

“I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

And in case it’s not clear the effects of your “be kind” movement:

“Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories.”

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for...

Post edited at 09:54
5
 Andrew Wells 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Pedro50:

She's a transphobe. Whether she's pathologically egotistical I don't know, or particularly care. Her views are about as sensible as trying to onsight solo Hubble in a gale force 5 storm.

21
 J72 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

I think Sun Ra would approve of this distinction 

 J72 30 Jun 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

And to hopefully inject a moderate point to above, surely if someone would prefer a person to refer to them in a certain way (whether their gender identity, or their name) it’s just simple politeness to do so, at no cost to you? Regardless of your views on their reasons for doing so.

i have no strong views on the matter overall and can see reasonable concerns on both ‘sides’ but do wish on all social issues we wouldn’t collectively separate into two groups but reflect on the viewpoints and concerns of people who hold differing viewpoints to us.

Need more coffee this Sunday morning perhaps! 
 

 seankenny 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> She's a transphobe. Whether she's pathologically egotistical I don't know, or particularly care. Her views are about as sensible as trying to onsight solo Hubble in a gale force 5 storm.

Just to dismiss someone is much, much easier than engaging with what she says and explaining why your conclusion follows from it. It shouldn’t be hard given you are engaged with the issue and a bright lad, right?

You’ve just been told that a political movement that you support is frightening for some women. To dismiss that with such bluster seems… well, it doesn’t seem good to me. 

Post edited at 10:22
7
In reply to broken spectre:

Meanwhile, in the East, this was a static fire test (i.e. the engines are tested while the rocket is held down to the pad) of China's knock-off of the falcon 9

https://xcancel.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1807344007145521266

https://xcancel.com/alphacharlie89/status/1807325869687316618

And not that long ago from a different orbital launcher.... Here's what happens to Long March 2C first stages on a successful launch:

https://xcancel.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1804557900859257107

Post edited at 16:11
 lowersharpnose 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Would you please give an example where JK Rowling has been abusive.  Context is all.

1
 lowersharpnose 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

She's a transphobe

Would you please give an example.

1
 Andrew Wells 30 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

J K Rowling is not in this thread and therefore I can't engage with her. 

Her rhetoric is extremely frightening to trans women (notably she and other TERFs are never interested in trans men), I'm not particularly inclined to entertain the idea that she has "sensible" ideas

16
 Tom Valentine 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Since half the controversy  about transwomen seems to be based on their sporting ability and their validity in female competitions, one  reason why JKR and the media show less interest in trans men might be  that such people show little or no inclination to enter into competition with male athletes. If they did it would provoke comment and attract the attention of JKR, Sharron Davies, Martina Navratilova et al  and , who knows, might earn them a bit of grudging respect. But trans men are not as prominent in the sporting arena as transwomen and therefore not as newsworthy in general.

 Andrew Wells 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I suspect it actually because Rowling et al consider Trans Women to essentially be 1) Men and 2) therefore a physical threat masquerading as a Woman, whereas they see Trans Men as essentially Women who are victims of male violence.

Needless to say this is highly offensive. As for examples; Rowling continually misgenders people online, repeating her comments would be rather distasteful but a quick Google will reveal specific examples 

14
 seankenny 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> J K Rowling is not in this thread and therefore I can't engage with her. 

You can of course engage with her ideas via her writing, some of which has been quoted above. Aside from the obvious asininity of this comment, its prevailing feature is its cowardice. Why are you so scared to debate this issue?

> Her rhetoric is extremely frightening to trans women (notably she and other TERFs are never interested in trans men), I'm not particularly inclined to entertain the idea that she has "sensible" ideas

The way we usually make such accuations is to quote the offending statement and, if necessary, to elaborate and explain why it's a problem. I believe you're more interested in casting an aspersion on everything that she's written or said. Why? At a guess your objections are not to do with thinking about how we organise society based on arguments about, say, the balance of rights and safety, but exist to create an in-group and an out-group, whose boundaries you can then police. Amazing that a clever, forthright woman is in the out-group.

4
 Michael Hood 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Are there any stats on the relative number of trans women & trans men?

And if it's not close to equality, has there been any reputable study into why not?

As a slight aside, I was a bit bemused by a Labour spokesperson being unable to answer "which toilet should trans women use" - surely the obvious answer is (although difficult to enforce in practice) if you've not undergone the relevant surgery then use the men's, if you've undergone that surgery then use whichever you prefer.

3
 Andrew Wells 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

2021 census the split was basically 50/50 IIRC

As for debating what Rowling has said; I take issue with her views, but her repeated misgendering of people amounts to transphobia regardless of anything else, and that is highly objectionable and offensive. So that, in my view, is not debatable. Regardless of her views on gender, she has made many transphobic comments. And that's hardly just my view, as you can see by the fact that she is rightly criticised heavily for it.

I am absolutely aware that UKC probably trends closer to her views than not and I'm probably an outlier. I imagine the average poster here is a bit on the older side and anecdotally that appears to be quite a significant divider in terms of opinion (young people consider trans rights much more important and find transphobia and TERF-views much more offensive).

15
 Mr Lopez 30 Jun 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> Would you please give an example where JK Rowling has been abusive.  Context is all.

> She's a transphobe

> Would you please give an example.

In the videoi posted above she was into intricate detail giving a lot more than examples. If you really want to know it's an hour and a half well spent.

3
 seankenny 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> As for debating what Rowling has said; I take issue with her views, but her repeated misgendering of people amounts to transphobia regardless of anything else, and that is highly objectionable and offensive. So that, in my view, is not debatable.


Take this quote here:

“I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.”

Did she misgender anyone? No, she does not. So surely it’s safe to discuss this paragraph? I appreciate that you’re angry with her, and want to banish her - and all gender critical thought - from the circle of what can be discussed. I think this is incredibly intellectually weak and worse, it makes you a terrible ally to trans people. You want to persuade others to make big social changes but won’t argue for those changes and call anyone who disagrees a bigot? You’re going to fail; in fact this approach is currently failing. You can just move on to the next thing when this falls out of fashion. Other people cannot. 

> Regardless of her views on gender, she has made many transphobic comments.

So at least quote some for us. And then explain why you see them as such. 

> And that's hardly just my view, as you can see by the fact that she is rightly criticised heavily for it.

She’s also lauded. And her position is similar to the median view in the U.K., when those views are tested by pollsters. So if popularity is your metric…

> I am absolutely aware that UKC probably trends closer to her views than not and I'm probably an outlier. I imagine the average poster here is a bit on the older side and anecdotally that appears to be quite a significant divider in terms of opinion (young people consider trans rights much more important and find transphobia and TERF-views much more offensive).

You’re aware of the arguments that the use of TERF is a slur akin to, well, all the other slurs we have for anyone who isn’t a nice white guy like you or I? 

2
 lowersharpnose 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Mr Lopez:

If I get time, I will watch that vid, but it is very long. 

All I wanted was an example of the abuse that is claimed JKR so liberally throws about.

3
 Andrew Wells 30 Jun 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I'm aware that TERFs consider it a pejorative, yes. I'd say that it's an accurate description. Would you consider yourself under that umbrella, Sean?

As for debating you, I have no doubt we could both spill a lot of words over it, but I'd never persuade you to change your views and I've heard it all before from you too, so it does seem rather pointless. 

14
 Andsomemore 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> (notably she and other TERFs are never interested in trans men), 

Isn't that because apparently trans women continue to commit crime at much the same rate as men, so represent similar risk? The sort of risk single-sex spaces are intended to minimise?

3
 Jenny C 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

As a cis woman I have no issues at all sharing public toilets with trans women. It's a private cubicle and so long as they outwardly present as female that's ok by me. 

I have never knowingly shared changing rooms with a trans woman but am happy to live in blissful ignorance, my local gym has private cubicles for anyone who feels the need for extra privacy. (Interestingly when a friend transitioned F-M the point where I started to feel awkward sharing the changing room was the point where he swapped to using the men's facilities)

Prisons and hospitals really need assessing on a case by case basis. Depending on the stage of transition (nature of offence) I don't see an issue with trans people being treated according their adopted gender, however the privacy/safety of other inmates/patients also needs to be considered. 

Womens refugees are a tough one. I can totally understand that vulnerable cis women want, need and deserve a safe female only space. However trans women are disproportionately vulnerable to abuse and have an equal right to a safe space. Maybe some refugees should be permitted to only cater for cis women, with others choosing to cater for all women???

Sport is another matter entirely, as yes those born male do have physiological advantages in most sports. At an amateur (fun) level who cares? The likes of Parkrun perhaps could include a third 'trans and non-binary' gender category. At an elite level though unfortunately I think it probably is necessary in the name of fairness to the majority to restrict participation by trans women. 

Oh and how you address someone is a matter of basic good manners. As someone said above, you should use the name, title and gender that the other person introduces themselves as. I admit I find non binary incredibly awkward (in my mind 'they' is a plural or for when you're not sure because you haven't met a person, so feels silly for a someone you know), but that is my problem not theirs.

 Andsomemore 30 Jun 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Fine if you want to call her a TERF if the only objection to that she feels it pejorative - her feelings shouldn't bar you from that, I agree. 

The issue is really whether it's accurate to call her a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

As far as I can tell she is not 'trans-exclusionary' as she doesn't seem to mind where trans people go by and large, any more than she cares about where men go. What she objects to is people using women's spaces for sexually predatory reasons. Those who do so are nearly always natal men. And because some men will use subterfuge to do so (ie. pretending they have rights to use space as a cleaner, or now as trans-women, or doing so when others aren't around or because it is dark), ALL natal men are barred. Yes, we (men, trans-women) all get tarred as potential sex-abusers. Sad. But necessary to ensure the safety of a physically weaker and vulnerable sex in these spaces. You can surely see the massive hole that gets blown in that basic safeguarding measure if we allow anyone who identifies as trans to access those spaces? It's not an anti-trans measure any more than its an anti-male measure.

Second, she is also not a 'radical feminist'. Her feminism is pretty bog standard, potentially shared with people barely interested or aware of feminism (I don't consider myself a feminist but struggle to find daylight between myself and most 1st/2nd wave feminists like her). If there is something radical in her branch of feminism I'd like to know what it is.

Given this, it seems labelling her a TERF is chosen not because it is accurate but as it labels her as exclusionary and radical. Both pejorative terms that seem quite incorrect.

2
 LastBoyScout 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> The other story you've latched onto is that they've decided who will develop the system that deorbits it at the end of its life. It was always going to have an end of life, and letting it randomly decay and land... somewhere... isn't a great plan. Might want to start thinking about that a little ahead of time, no? Maybe when we've had a couple decades of advances in spaceflight since its inception, but still have time to develop a vehicle capable of doing it in control. Which, actually, is quite a big ask, for reasons you can read about if so inclined.

This bothers me, and I've said so before. Surely there must be a better way of bringing down the ISS (and the myriad of other obsolete stuff up there) in a way that means it can be recycled, rather than just incinerated on re-entry!

They got it up there, after all!

3
 montyjohn 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> In short, the fewer things society does by gender, the fewer people will see the need to transition.

Whilst a lot of the things you mention may help a few, I think the things we need to fix are a bit more basic.

At first glance it may not seem obvious, but bullying at school could be a massive contributor.

My wife is a teacher at an all girl's school and they have noticed kids who are unpopular, targets of bullying etc will come to school one day saying they prefer "he" and the other kids are suddenly very nice to them, respect them and want to help them.

This is just one trend that has been observed, but there are many ways that people are unhappy and I don't believe we always know the best way to address being unhappy. 

If we feel we need to be a certain way in society we're going to try and "fix" ourselves to fit in. If people we're just nicer to each other I think a lot more people would be willing to accept themselves as they are.

This is at least my possibly naïve interpretation of things.

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Sport is another matter entirely, as yes those born male do have physiological advantages in most sports. At an amateur (fun) level who cares? The likes of Parkrun perhaps could include a third 'trans and non-binary' gender category. At an elite level though unfortunately I think it probably is necessary in the name of fairness to the majority to restrict participation by trans women. 

Parkrun in the end is mostly about participation and self-improvement.  They should probably just remove the league tables entirely (going a little further than they have) because that removes the issue.  Because they have no ability to verify who puts themselves in what category (the resources simply aren't there) getting involved in the issue is just fraught with problems.  This is why that athlete who is presently laying into them all over X annoys me so much, not because I don't agree with her point when it comes to sport that is intended to be competitive.

That will annoy (and has annoyed) the small number who go around winning Parkruns (sorry, first finishing), but that's basically a few people per Parkrun, the rest just care about their own time or competing with their mates on whatever terms that group of people wants.

On the other hand, I can see sense in sport categories generally being Open and Female, with Female meaning "born as a woman" - because it is one of those cases where it's pretty much entirely about genetic advantage and not about safe spaces, and I see no reason really good women shouldn't choose to compete in the male category if they want!

(Though that in itself opens up interesting questions about people with other genetic advantages - for instance, Dean Karnaszes, a famous ultra runner, is in part good at the sport because he has a genetic "defect" that prevents him getting lactic acid buildup in his muscles which gives him a greater endurance - and I'm sure there are other examples...)

2
 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

Though pretty much every set of toilets I go into these days have a sign stating that male or female cleaners may clean either.  So if she wants female only cleaners in the ladies', that ship has long sailed.

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> Would you please give an example where JK Rowling has been abusive.  Context is all.

Have a search on X and you'll see her directly referring to trans women as "men".  That's abusive, at least in my eyes.

She can use the term "trans woman" if she wishes to differentiate without upsetting people, therefore I conclude she intends to upset people.  I also quite like "natal woman" (which I hadn't heard before this thread) as a birth woman rather than "cis woman" which sounds a bit clumsy.

4
 Tom Valentine 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

I think the person you have twice referred to as "that (female) athlete" is Sharron Davies. If I'm right you will be able to refer to her by her name in any future comments.

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

That's the one, yes.  Not easy to find someone in the lands of X without a name.

Sharron absolutely wilfully refers directly to specific, named trans women as "men", which I consider abusive.  Her profile on X makes this clear.

I actually agree with some of her points with regard to competitive sport as noted above (just I don't agree that Parkrun is competitive sport nor should it be dealt with as if it was - the vast majority of Parkrunners care only about their own time and that of friends etc).  However she is quite abrasive and insulting, and thus I consider her postings to be transphobic, which to me dilutes the value of the points she seeks to make.

She could simply use the term "trans woman" instead, which would make her points stronger because she wouldn't, in almost every single post, be wilfully insulting people.

It's possible to make the main point of her campaigning (for those who were born as men not to be able to compete in the female category in competitive sport, because that category exists primarily to allow a fair competition among those who don't have genetic advantage compared to those who were born as men) without being insulting, but she fails to do this and as such I have a problem with her approach.

Post edited at 10:28
11
 deepsoup 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Though pretty much every set of toilets I go into these days have a sign stating that male or female cleaners may clean either.  So if she wants female only cleaners in the ladies', that ship has long sailed.

That's because public toilets aren't segregated by sex (coventionally) for reasons of safety - that's just been invented from whole cloth by those who want to portray trans women as a threat.  They're segregated out of a sense of Victorian propriety, as much else was segregated along lines of sex and social class back then, and they've largely remained so since just out of tradition.

Actually it makes more sense in many spaces for toilets in particular to be unisex, and in bars, concert venues etc. that mainly serve drinks for them to be 'urinals' -vs- 'cubicles'.  (This helps to balance things out, since the more traditional arrangement of giving equal space to both can often lead to long queues for women in those venues.)

There's no better example of how profoundly unserious those who seek to weaponise this as a 'culture war' issue that Kemi Badenoch's aides putting up crudely hand-made signs to relabel the toilets at the venue where she had a launch event for her leadership bid a couple of Prime Ministers back.

The strong anti-trans sentiment obvious here, in this otherwise left-leaning and quite liberal forum, shows how successful they've been though.  It's profoundly depressing.  And the parallel to the trope of gay men being portrayed as a threat (to children mostly) back in the day is striking.  If this forum had been a thing back in the 1980s, I bet there would have been very similar conversions going on about Clause 28.

7
 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Actually it makes more sense in many spaces for toilets in particular to be unisex, and in bars, concert venues etc. that mainly serve drinks for them to be 'urinals' -vs- 'cubicles'.  (This helps to balance things out, since the more traditional arrangement of giving equal space to both can often lead to long queues for women in those venues.)

The latter is certainly an issue - queues in the gents' are near unknown but in the ladies' are universal.  This strikes me as very unfair towards women.

Floor to ceiling cubicles are probably needed in this context, but they're better anyway because doesn't everyone prefer better privacy?  I certainly do - for instance in a railway station I'd vastly prefer it not to be physically possible for someone to swipe my bag from under the door, or to reach from the next cubicle and take my phone from my trouser pocket while they're round my ankles.

You can always tell a transphobe from someone who's genuinely concerned about safety - when presented with "how about totally individual cubicles with a toilet and sink in each" (as most modern offices have, for example) they shout that they prefer a female only space without that privacy.

Now, there are people who treat toilets as a gender segregated social area, but that really isn't an appropriate use of any toilet facility - they exist for using the toilet then washing one's hands, and nothing else - and particularly in schools (where that extends to them becoming a bullying issue) that type of usage *really* needs to be deprecated.

> And the parallel to the trope of gay men being portrayed as a threat (to children mostly) back in the day is striking. 

That it is.

Post edited at 11:32
2
 Jenny C 01 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> That's because public toilets aren't segregated by sex (coventionally) for reasons of safety - that's just been invented from whole cloth by those who want to portray trans women as a threat.  They're segregated out of a sense of Victorian propriety, as much else was segregated along lines of sex and social class back then, and they've largely remained so since just out of tradition.

Yes in general unisex facilities make far more sense, they also allow either parent to supervise/chaperone children of both genders without any awkwardness. Just got back from France where gender segregation was very lax and it works, just shut and lock the door for complete privacy.

> Actually it makes more sense in many spaces for toilets in particular to be unisex, and in bars, concert venues etc. that mainly serve drinks for them to be 'urinals' -vs- 'cubicles'.  (This helps to balance things out, since the more traditional arrangement of giving equal space to both can often lead to long queues for women in those venues.)

Actually bars and clubs are the one place that I very much do want segregated toilets. The loo is the one place you can use to evade (or 'hide') from unwanted male attention, or get a life lesson off your girl friends - which sadly where alcohol is consumed in volume is often necessary. (I however have no issues with sharing these female spaces with trans ladies)

1
 David Alcock 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> For someone who's so concerned about people being insulted by word choice, your comment about "dodgy teachers"  could be found extremely offensive by a particular cohort in the profession, especially since you narrow it down to those who were working in the eighties.

I do so hope you're trolling. If so, 10/10.

My rough peers and I were at secondary 80ish to 89ish including 6th form. If we define 'dodgy teacher' as someone you definitely did not want to be caught alone with (by concrete accounts and personal experiences, not hearsay, and a fair few 'resignations'), then my school was about 3% sexually predatory teachers, my partner's school around 5%. I wonder if her figure is higher because she's female? - hell, three of her teachers married pupils as soon as their 18th birthdays came around.

I think you underestimate the normalisation of the hyper-sexualised nature of the 70s that my age-group grew up in (at primary). That decade and the first half of the 80s absolutely reeked of sex and us kids were absolutely aware of it, and teachers (and other adults) trying it on was generally unremarkable. 

So, I utterly refute your statement and am wide-eyed in astonishment at your protestations and offence.

My apology for any personal offence caused but were you wearing a bloomin' blindfold? 

4
 Lankyman 01 Jul 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

Does the ISS have unisex toilets? Just trying to get the thread full circle.

 Tom Valentine 01 Jul 2024
In reply to David Alcock:

I can't see much point in apologising after making a comment like " teachers trying it on was generally unremarkable" but who am I to say your assessment of your particular school was wrong?  But as I conceded earlier, the  "dodgy"  comment was not really worth  getting  offended about, much as using the wrong pronoun is not really a big issue in the greater scheme of things, and certainly neither calling a teacher dodgy or misgendering someone is something that I would classify as abuse so the whole thing has been a bit of a storm in a teacup. 

Post edited at 13:10
4
 David Alcock 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Perhaps I should have said "a not insignificant minority of teachers trying it on," but I didn't really think I needed to be quite so literal. I thought my meaning was clear. 'Teachers' used like that is a form of synedoche - '*all* teachers' on the other hand...

Anyway, this is nitpicking. As a teacher back then - and I know several who were who freely admit they had colleagues they kept an eye on and warned pupils to be aware of - you must have come across it. I was genuinely surprised at your earlier remark. Indeed, I nearly threw my favourite mug at the wall.

It was not just *my* school. It was endemic. 

3
 David Alcock 01 Jul 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

But to bring the thread halfway back on track...

https://youtu.be/SRRw1ERj2Gc?si=8gZB8t0w6yDUbkEz

 wintertree 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Lankyman:

> Does the ISS have unisex toilets? Just trying to get the thread full circle.

For wee it’s unisex plumbing mating too individual “adapters” if I recall correctly.  

For poo it’s a unisex sit toilet.  I’d be ever paranoid about transrectal evisceration if the suction got too much (can happen with swimming pool filter/skimmers and hyperbaric chamber toilets if improperly activated.  Do *not* do an image search on the topic.)

 Robert Durran 01 Jul 2024
In reply to montyjohn:

>  If people we're just nicer to each other I think a lot more people would be willing to accept themselves as they are.

Though it is important to realise that transitioning is not about people rejecting who they are but about fully becoming who they are.

1
 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I can't see much point in apologising after making a comment like " teachers trying it on was generally unremarkable" but who am I to say your assessment of your particular school was wrong?  But as I conceded earlier, the  "dodgy"  comment was not really worth  getting  offended about, much as using the wrong pronoun is not really a big issue in the greater scheme of things, and certainly neither calling a teacher dodgy or misgendering someone is something that I would classify as abuse so the whole thing has been a bit of a storm in a teacup. 

This all rather depends on intent.

Misgendering someone by accident is something that just happens - if pulled up on it you simply apologise and use the correct one going forward.

Misgendering someone wilfully in order to cause offence or make a point is abusive.

Just as if I'd cast those aspersions at you rather than at the people who were actually up to no good in 1980s schools (and they did exist).

2
 Michael Hood 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Though it is important to realise that transitioning is not about people rejecting who they are but about fully becoming who they are.

Agreed but it might help ensure that the need to transition is all internally generated and not due to any societal pressures or issues.

Having said that, I find it difficult to imagine that any adult would fully transition without an extremely strong internal need.

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Actually bars and clubs are the one place that I very much do want segregated toilets. The loo is the one place you can use to evade (or 'hide') from unwanted male attention, or get a life lesson off your girl friends - which sadly where alcohol is consumed in volume is often necessary. (I however have no issues with sharing these female spaces with trans ladies)

I suspect this is also valued by some girls in schools - but because it can be such a hive of bullying (because enforcement doesn't generally take place in toilets (male and female) because of them being such a sensitive location) I think it's overridden and unisex full height cubicles with an open handwashing area (or a sink in each one) are preferable overall.

I can entirely see the point in a club where 99.9999% of the time the men* are the predators you may need to get away from, as you say.  I wish we could fix the actual problem there though, i.e. men who think they can just go round and grab any woman they want.

* Cis straight men, that is.

Post edited at 14:05
2
 montyjohn 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Having said that, I find it difficult to imagine that any adult would fully transition without an extremely strong internal need.

I think that's why we see with adult it's something like 95% of people are happy with their choice after transitioning.

With children it's a very different story and I've read that 80% of kids who have gender dysphoria as a child do not go on to be transgender as an adult. Worth pointing out that studies are mostly old.

 Lankyman 01 Jul 2024
In reply to wintertree:

> I’d be ever paranoid about transrectal evisceration if the suction got too much (can happen with swimming pool filter/skimmers and hyperbaric chamber toilets if improperly activated.  Do *not* do an image search on the topic.)

They never warned us about this at Wigan Baths when I was a kid

 dunc56 01 Jul 2024
In reply to wintertree:

I'm having that - boondoggle ! You've schooled me today. 

 Tom Valentine 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

We'll have to disagree about what constitutes abuse, then. I'd rather save its use for something a bit more serious.

As said, storm in a teacup which needs de-escalating or whatever the appropriate space technological term is.

3
 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

To clarify, I mean abuse in the sense of "abusive language", no intention to trivialise things like sexual abuse.

Language used to deliberately offend is abusive, whatever it is.

Post edited at 14:30
2
 Niall_H 01 Jul 2024
In reply to montyjohn:

> I've read that 80% of kids who have gender dysphoria as a child do not go on to be transgender


A lot depends on how one's definining dysphoria: some older studies inclded almost any non gender-typical behaviour in their counting of dysphoic youth, rather that limiting themselves to strongly expressed gender identity incongruence.  In children who've taken steps towards transition (either purely social, or including treatment with puberty blockers) the desistance rates are very low (7.3% of social transitioners in the _Pediatrics_ 2022 study [1] , 6% of blocker-treated individuals in the 2020 _Archives of Sexual Behavior_ paper [2] )


[1]  https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Ge...

[2] https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01660-8.pdf 

 Jenny C 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I can entirely see the point in a club where 99.9999% of the time the men* are the predators you may need to get away from, as you say.  I wish we could fix the actual problem there though, i.e. men who think they can just go round and grab any woman they want.

> * Cis straight men, that is.

It's not just about predatory men. When under the influence we all loose our filters and make bad decisions, being able to step away and regroup your thoughts (maybe with advice from your mates) can help to prevent you from consensually doing something in the moment that you later regret.

 lowersharpnose 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

I could search on X, but it is not my hunt. 

AFAIAC, those claiming that JKR doles out abuse should be able to provide evidence to support that claim.

1
 Luke90 01 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

This particular series of tweets made national headlines at the time...

https://deadline.com/2024/04/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-law-1235872981/

Post edited at 16:43
1
 Tom Valentine 01 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

Neil has explained how his definition of abuse is different from mine (maybe yours too) so it's possibly the case that you have  come across JKR being abusive but not registered her comments as abuse.

Post edited at 16:43
1
 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

Thanks, that's an excellent set of examples.

1
 wintertree 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Lankyman:

> They never warned us about this at Wigan Baths when I was a kid

I’ve never looked at a filter/skimmer the same way since I read a paper on the subject…

 Rampart 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> laying into them all over X

It's at odds with the general plea for accepting self-identities this thread has developed, but I can't help but feel in this specific case we'd all be better off just continuing to call it Twitter.

 Luke90 01 Jul 2024
In reply to wintertree:

Presumably you've read the infamous Chuck Palahniuk short story?

 wintertree 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

> Presumably you've read the infamous Chuck Palahniuk short story?

I had not.

I have now.

Mind bleach, please.

 montyjohn 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Rampart:

Now you're just showing your age.

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Rampart:

Under Musk, Twitter has got xitter?

 Michael Hood 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

What I don't get is why it has to be referred to as "X, formerly known as Twitter"

How many people are there in the world who used Twitter or were interested in Twitter but do NOT know that it's now called X? Is it a positive number?

 lowersharpnose 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Exactly, all I am asking for is an example of something written by JKR that is considered abusive. 

Will read Luke90's link.

1
 Luke90 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

I reckon you'd be surprised how many people haven't internalised that info. I went looking for polling and largely failed apart from a throwaway line in this article saying that 7-in-10 American adults had heard of the change. Presumably a few more have noticed since then but it still won't be anywhere near 100%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fac...

Twitter became referenced so often in the media that the people who actually use it themselves or take an interest in tech stories specifically are not the only ones they need to catch when referring to it.

 lowersharpnose 01 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Does that Deadline piece contain a solid example of what you consider to be abuse by JKR (e.g. do you regard describing Isla Bryson as a man as abusive) ?

1
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

I'd just describe them* as a rapist, to be honest.  I have no problem with being offensive towards people who do things like that.

However, the vast majority of trans people are (obviously) not rapists.  Bringing this in has a similar feel to things people would bring into discussions about gay people 20+ years ago; it's not a nice tone.

* Given the motivations of this person, I'm going to stick to gender-neutral language, as one should do if in any doubt as to the correct pronouns to use.

Post edited at 11:24
5
 seankenny 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> However, the vast majority of trans people are (obviously) not rapists.  Bringing this in has a similar feel to things people would bring into discussions about gay people 20+ years ago; it's not a nice tone.

If you support a political movement that has attempted to have a male rapist housed in a female prison then I think that trying to shut down debate about that is a bit rich. 

1
 Robert Durran 02 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> If you support a political movement that has attempted to have a male rapist housed in a female prison then I think that trying to shut down debate about that is a bit rich. 

I think the Isla Bryson case has been misrepresented. The case by case system worked as it should and he/she never mixed with female prisoners.

3
 seankenny 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think the Isla Bryson case has been misrepresented. The case by case system worked as it should and he/she never mixed with female prisoners.

Explain to me why the case by case system shouldn’t be extended to cover all prisoners, some of whom will undoubtedly be safer in female prisons than male ones and who will also probably pose little threat to female inmates. Why don’t we just abandon the entire system of sex segregation in the prison estate and proceed by a trusted case by case appraisal system?

4
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> If you support a political movement that has attempted to have a male rapist housed in a female prison then I think that trying to shut down debate about that is a bit rich. 

How about a lesbian in a womens' prison?  A gay man in a mens' prison?

TBH rapists should probably be housed in a prison adequately secure that they can't put other prisoners at risk - i.e. watched every minute of the day.  The idea of gender-segregated prisons is a bit old hat anyway.

I don't support a "political movement", in any case.  I support people.  I don't agree with everything Stonewall says on the matter, as we've already discussed above.  I'm not suggesting there aren't "liberal paradox" issues (just as there are between e.g. feminism and some religions), nor am I suggesting there shouldn't be a decent, open debate on how this is best handled - all I'm asking is for people (JKR for instance) to simply *be kind* and not misgender people wilfully, because you don't need to do that in order to participate in a productive debate.

It is simply not necessary to wilfully offend people to have a sensible debate on the matter.  Thus people like JKR who seek to do so are clearly doing more than that.

Post edited at 12:26
3
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Explain to me why the case by case system shouldn’t be extended to cover all prisoners, some of whom will undoubtedly be safer in female prisons than male ones and who will also probably pose little threat to female inmates. Why don’t we just abandon the entire system of sex segregation in the prison estate and proceed by a trusted case by case appraisal system?

Bingo!

Segregation in prisons is a bit "old hat" really.  Security is the answer, so no inmate ever has an opportunity to offend against another inmate or member of staff.

Post edited at 12:08
4
 Robert Durran 02 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

Maybe for the same reasons you are keen on having segragated changing, toilets etc; so that female prisoners feel safe.

1
 fred99 02 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

Why don’t we just abandon the entire system of sex segregation in the prison estate and proceed by a trusted case by case appraisal system?

We can't even trust the prison/probation system to not release prisoners who are a danger to society in general. Trying to add another amount of work would more likely lead to even more *mistakes.

* If you can call some action (or lack of) which leads to the death/assault/rape of innocents a "mistake" - I can't be so generous.

Post edited at 13:20
 Michael Hood 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Nice theory but it requires £ to do that. Rather a lot of them which means in practice that it'll have zero political traction.

 seankenny 02 Jul 2024
In reply to fred99:

> Why don’t we just abandon the entire system of sex segregation in the prison estate and proceed by a trusted case by case appraisal system?

> We can't even trust the prison/probation system to not release prisoners who are a danger to society in general. Trying to add another amount of work would more likely lead to even more *mistakes.

> * If you can call some action (or lack of) which leads to the death/assault/rape of innocents a "mistake" - I can't be so generous.

Now tell me why this isn’t obvious…

4
 lowersharpnose 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

I only brought that Adam Bryson/Graham aka Isla Bryson up because he was in the article linked to.

I agree with you that *he* is a rapist.  No doubt about the pronoun, he has a penis which he used to commit the rapes. 

I am still after an example of the supposed copious abuse meted out by JKR.  Do you have one?

2
 Luke90 02 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> I only brought that Adam Bryson/Graham aka Isla Bryson up because he was in the article linked to.

The article mentioned quite a few other trans women that Rowling had listed, you just picked out the most objectionable one. Which I'm sure Rowling had in mind when she compiled the list so that anyone objecting to her tweets could be accused of defending rapists.

4
 lowersharpnose 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

I just picked the first.  Not the worst.

The second one on the list was a Katie Dolatowski, a male paedophile who sexually assaulted a 10 year old and has other convictions for violence.

The third was Amy George.  Even the BBC refers to him as a man...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67144375

A man who abducted a primary school girl while dressed as a woman and then sexually assaulted her in his Borders home has been jailed for 20 years.

etc.

1
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

A man dressed as a woman and a trans woman aren't quite the same thing.  There are other cases of men dressing as women but not considering themselves to actually be a woman, for instance drag artists and pantomime dames.

Post edited at 17:58
7
 Tom Valentine 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Miller/ George identified as transgender once he'd been arrested and was being prosecuted.The court was told that he was transitioning to female. He probably wasn't the first sex offender to do this and I'm pretty sure he won't be the last.

Post edited at 19:15
 Robert Durran 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> A man dressed as a woman and a trans woman aren't quite the same thing.  There are other cases of men dressing as women but not considering themselves to actually be a woman, for instance drag artists and pantomime dames.

Very odd that you are getting dislikes for stating this.

3
 Luke90 02 Jul 2024
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> I just picked the first.  Not the worst.

Perhaps I should have said "one of" the most objectionable. I hadn't bothered going through checking all their crimes. I've no desire to defend any of them, nor do I particularly care what prison they end up in aside from whatever precautions are necessary to keep everyone safe (including themselves, because I hope we're still a civilised society and that should include keeping all of our prisoners safe while they serve their time).

> The second one on the list was a Katie Dolatowski, a male paedophile who sexually assaulted a 10 year old and has other convictions for violence.

So you've extended your list precisely up to the point where Rowling's list stops consisting of reprehensible criminals. I don't much care how anyone refers to those particular people, except to the extent that they're unfairly held up and promoted as representatives of a much wider group of extremely vulnerable people who shouldn't be tarnished like that.

5
 nufkin 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

> What I don't get is why it has to be referred to as "X, formerly known as Twitter"

I suppose in some contexts just writing 'X' could be confusing, with its long-established history denoting something unknown or unquantifiable. Which is presumably why Elon thought it would be a good name.

Or because he was being a twunt. If I used Twitter, I'd still call it Twitter, partly out of contrary bloody-mindedness, partly force of habit. I'm barely past Opal Fruits as it is 

 Robert Durran 02 Jul 2024
In reply to nufkin:

> Or because he was being a twunt. If I used Twitter, I'd still call it Twitter, partly out of contrary bloody-mindedness, partly force of habit. I'm barely past Opal Fruits as it is.

Are you serious? Opal fruits are no longer Opal Fruits? 

 Michael Hood 02 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Are you serious? Opal fruits are no longer Opal Fruits? 

Starburst IIRC 

I presume you're aware that Marathon bars have been renamed 😁

 Rob Exile Ward 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

I find this debate incredibly confusing and conflicting, despite having a son who tries explaining it and all it's nuances and subtleties.

One point I don't think I've seen made yet though - if the 'transmax' position was adopted, I.e. self identification  WAS all that was required for you to be treated as gender of your choice, then bad people of both sexes (though mostly men) WOULD use that as a means to attack vulnerable women.

1
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Erm, have you read the thread?  Bad people potentially misusing it has basically been 99.9999% of the argument against.

Indeed, aside from prejudice at one's eyes being offended by someone who may look a little unconventional, it is pretty much the only valid argument against (though it can be a strong argument).

Post edited at 08:09
2
 Lankyman 03 Jul 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

> the egotist billionaire Musk has been tasked with towing the thread into the ocean.

Unless it disappears up its own backside first

 lowersharpnose 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

I stopped at three because I thought three was enough.

The fourth is some bald 30 year man who for some reason is allowed to play sport against young women.  Players who called him a man were disciplined.

etc.

JKR's tweet ridicules Hamza Yusef's hate crime bill, according to which hate can include a truthful statement that someone does not like. 

3
In reply to Lankyman:

It's not just the West. A static launch test goes awry...

youtube.com/watch?v=ys0DOsZmr7g&

Disclaimer: Anything to do with rocketry is going to look spectacular when something goes Peter Tong so I won't gloat but I'm pretty sure the guy filming this drops a curse word or three!

1
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Erm, have you read the thread?  Bad people potentially misusing it has basically been 99.9999% of the argument against.

> Indeed, aside from prejudice at one's eyes being offended by someone who may look a little unconventional, it is pretty much the only valid argument against (though it can be a strong argument).

The actual gender critical position is considerably more complex than this, and goes much further than potential misuse. Unfortunately I have really seen the trans rights side take those arguments particularly seriously. For example, there is both a GC critique of transgender ideology and a conservative critique, which are almost completely elided by trans ideology supporters. 

 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I find this debate incredibly confusing and conflicting, despite having a son who tries explaining it and all its nuances and subtleties.

There are many excellent female writers who have covered the issue in depth from the critical feminist perspective: Hadley Freeman, Helen Joyce, Sarah Ditum, Kathleen Stock, to name a few. 

JK Rowling’s 2020 piece is a good starting point:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for...

This is also good, and has lots of links if you wish to explore further:

https://thecritic.co.uk/why-labour-doesnt-understand-the-gender-wars/

On the other side, it might be worth looking into the work of Judith Butler, the theorist who created much of contemporary gender ideology. I’m sure the well read, intellectually questing pro-gender ideology posters on here will come up with more names. 
 

> One point I don't think I've seen made yet though - if the 'transmax' position was adopted, I.e. self identification  WAS all that was required for you to be treated as gender of your choice, then bad people of both sexes (though mostly men) WOULD use that as a means to attack vulnerable women.

This is absolutely implicit in nearly all the arguments made so far… 

Post edited at 09:23
1
 Ramblin dave 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I find this debate incredibly confusing and conflicting, despite having a son who tries explaining it and all it's nuances and subtleties.

> One point I don't think I've seen made yet though - if the 'transmax' position was adopted, I.e. self identification  WAS all that was required for you to be treated as gender of your choice, then bad people of both sexes (though mostly men) WOULD use that as a means to attack vulnerable women.

Conversely, the other point that doesn't get made enough is that the standard "just protecting women" position that access to "women's spaces" should be based on biological sex and nothing else then you're requiring trans people to accept that either they can't exist safely in public or shouldn't exist at all. And probably the latter, because it's hard to see how mandating that butch, bearded trans-men can use the ladies changing room unchallenged is going to do much for women's safety. And if you do believe that trans people should basically be electro-shocked until they get a grip on themselves and stop playing dress-up then that's on you, but you don't get to act like you're adopting a reasonable compromise position and unreasonably demanding trans fundamentalists are attacking you for no good reason.

9
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Though what I do wonder is if fewer people would choose to transition (either way) if gender roles weren't still so deeply ingrained in society.

Some obviously would (those whose reasoning is genuinely based on a strong instinctive feeling that they're in the wrong physical body - i.e. medically diagnosed gender dysphoria), but I think fewer would.  Pretty much all such people would likely want to have surgery to correct that body issue (in so far as it's possible), which deals with the concern raised about "people with penises" in female spaces, because post-surgery they don't have a penis any more.

(I doubt homophobia realistically has much to do with it, as transphobia in society generally is far, far stronger than homophobia - so generally someone is not likely to make their life easier by transitioning to become straight)

Post edited at 10:12
3
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Sadly a tiny proportion of predatory men may falsely claim to be trans in order to access women's spaces. But, do we honestly believe that this kind of scumbag gives a damn about respect? Even with a strictly binary approach to gender there is nothing to stop these men from dressing up and accessing public women's spaces in disguise. This kind of impersonation makes great headlines, but totally fails to recognise that a cis man dressed as a woman is not the same as a trans woman.

Also you are entirely correct that as a cis woman I would feel (have felt) uncomfortable sharing a female only changing rooms with a trans man. The individual in question was a acquaintance who was transitioning and it was around the time that I started to feel awkward (and he was very visibly male) that he started to use the men's facilities.

Trans women are statistically far more vulnerable (I think it's 4x more likely) to experience sexual abuse by men than cis women. They have every right to safe spaces and that means treating them as a woman in the majority of circumstances. 

As I said above, prisons need to assess on a case by case basis. A trans lady who has had top&bottom surgery charged with theft, is very different to someone only a few months into their transition charged with sex offences. Safety of other prisoners together with safety and dignity of the offender both need to be considered.

2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> As I said above, prisons need to assess on a case by case basis. A trans lady who has had top&bottom surgery charged with theft, is very different to someone only a few months into their transition charged with sex offences.

Sexual assault and rape are vastly underreported and even when those offences are reported, the conviction rates remain very low. Given that, isn’t it perhaps a little naive to assess risk purely on legal outcomes? There are a lot of unpunished sexual criminals out there. 

Post edited at 10:22
1
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Sadly a tiny proportion of predatory men may falsely claim to be trans in order to access women's spaces. But, do we honestly believe that this kind of scumbag gives a damn about respect? Even with a strictly binary approach to gender there is nothing to stop these men from dressing up and accessing public women's spaces in disguise. This kind of impersonation makes great headlines, but totally fails to recognise that a cis man dressed as a woman is not the same as a trans woman.

Some of this will come down to how classically awful humans are at risk assessment.  This is most visible in terms of fear of flying - what one should really fear is the car journey to the airport as it's several orders of magnitude more dangerous.  But a very large number of people are scared of flying, and hardly anyone is scared of driving.

Thus, if this has happened once, people will be terrified of the possibility of it.

But in reality, based on what women (e.g. in my family) have told me, male assailants going into female spaces e.g. public toilets are much more likely to do so *as males* because realistically who is going to stop them?  This makes a good case for the "individual unisex floor to ceiling cubicles" approach, because following someone into a fully enclosed cubicle without resistance is rather harder than following someone into a traditional female toilet unseen then taking photos under/over the door, for instance.

Post edited at 10:26
2
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

Very true, but the issue of underreporting probably applies to both cis and trans women. My point is that although they were born male trans women are not immune to the danger of predatory men and like myself have the right to safe spaces.

(and yes I am well aware of male rape, but that's just complicating things even further)

Edit - that's a bit like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to teach children, because even though you have never been accused or convicted of any offences, you 'might potentially' have done something in the past that was never reported.

(And no I am not accusing you of anything, just using it as an example of false accusations based on zero evidence)

Post edited at 10:32
 Niall_H 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Quite!  You put it better (and more amusingly) than I was about to

(Also, I'm weirded that both your post and Jenny C's later one got dislikes - both seem politely put and clearly argued)

2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Very true, but the issue of underreporting probably applies to both cis and trans women. My point is that although they were born male trans women are not immune to the danger of predatory men and like myself have the right to safe spaces.

Well, male on male violence is absolutely a thing. Predatory males are also violent towards other men.

> Edit - that's a bit like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to teach children, because even though you have never been accused or convicted of any offences, you 'might potentially' have done something in the past that was never reported.

> (And no I am not accusing you of anything, just using it as an example of false accusations based on zero evidence)

But we recognise the risk and take active steps to ameliorate it, don’t we? Male teachers are not allowed in girls’ changing rooms, for example. Teaching kids at the climbing wall, we were not allowed to take them to part of the bouldering wall that is hidden behind a corner - out of safeguarding concerns. That’s very much at the other end of the spectrum. 

1
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Well, male on male violence is absolutely a thing. Predatory males are also violent towards other men.

Sadly yes and being born female doesn't prevent you from committing violent (or sexual) crimes - people really can be incredibly nasty things.

> But we recognise the risk and take active steps to ameliorate it, don’t we? Male teachers are not allowed in girls’ changing rooms, for example. Teaching kids at the climbing wall, we were not allowed to take them to part of the bouldering wall that is hidden behind a corner - out of safeguarding concerns. That’s very much at the other end of the spectrum. 

Yes, but as I said above the need for a case assessment should consider not only criminal history but also the degree of transition - to miss quote JKR "people with penises "

Can you imagine a trans woman with nice breasts and a vaginoplasty being safe in a men's prison? And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable sharing with trans man with who has a phalloplasty.

But prison is something that only affects a tiny tiny proportion of the population, even though it does make great headlines. Trans rights in the 'normal' free world are what we should be focusing our attention on.

​​​​​

Post edited at 10:52
2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Sadly yes and being born female doesn't prevent you from committing violent (or sexual) crimes - people really can be incredibly nasty things.

Yes, but men commit the overwhelmingly vast majority of crimes. Do we REALLY need to go over the statistics for this to show that crime is fundamentally a male activity? 

> Yes, but as I said above the need for a case assessment should consider not only criminal history but also the degree of transition - to miss quote JKR "people with penises "

Yes, but this ignores the problem that transwomen retain many male physical attributes even after transition. And there is some evidence that they retain male patterns of offending. I don’t think this evidence is particularly strong but having only weak evidence either way suggests a cautious approach would be best. So even though a trans woman may have undergone surgery, there is reason to think that they will still have the same propensity to commit crime as an intact male, and much of the same physical ability. You don’t need a penis to beat someone up. 

> Can you imagine a trans woman with nice breasts and a vaginoplasty being safe in a men's prison? And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable sharing with trans man with who has a phalloplasty.

Yes, we need to expand the prison estate to accommodate such prisoners. 

> But prison is something that only affects a tiny tiny proportion of the population, even though it does make great headlines. Trans rights in the 'normal' free world are what we should be focusing our attention on.

I think that most women in prison are poor and marginalised; these are people whose protection deserves our thought and care rather than being sacrificed for ideological reasons. That’s important to me as someone on the left, although I don’t think these sentiments are confined to one end of the political spectrum.

7
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Yes, but this ignores the problem that transwomen retain many male physical attributes even after transition. And there is some evidence that they retain male patterns of offending. I don’t think this evidence is particularly strong but having only weak evidence either way suggests a cautious approach would be best. So even though a trans woman may have undergone surgery, there is reason to think that they will still have the same propensity to commit crime as an intact male, and much of the same physical ability. You don’t need a penis to beat someone up. 

A risk yes, and one that needs assessing on a case by case basis. Totally agree that it needs to be a cautious approach.

> Yes, we need to expand the prison estate to accommodate such prisoners. 

What is the percentage of trans prisoners? Obviously we need suitable accommodation but I can't see anyone wanting to pay for it, so for the moment we have to try to accommodate everyone within the facilities we have.

> I think that most women in prison are poor and marginalised; these are people whose protection deserves our thought and care rather than being sacrificed for ideological reasons. That’s important to me as someone on the left, although I don’t think these sentiments are confined to one end of the political spectrum.

I wasn't in any way trying to suggest that they don't deserve care and protection, or that their rights should be sacrificed for ideological reasons. It's a complex situation that needs to be viewed compassionately from both sides, whilst also considering the objective risks to all inmates.

Just that it's frustrating when people use the complex situation in prisons as an excuse to restrict trans rights everywhere. For example as a cis woman I feel that sharing cubicle toilets with a trans woman is a non issue, but clarifying trans rights within this kind of everyday setting is a priority as it affects all of us on a daily basis.

​​​

Post edited at 11:35
2
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> (I doubt homophobia realistically has much to do with it, as transphobia in society generally is far, far stronger than homophobia - so generally someone is not likely to make their life easier by transitioning to become straight)

I think transphobia and homophobia are essentially the same thing, and what's evident there is that an 'Overton window' has gradually shifted (or been shifted) over the last 40 years or so making homophobia much less socially acceptable than it was.  I suspect a fair few of those who are currently conducting a "war on woke" would very much like to shift that 'window' back the other way.

3
In reply to Michael Hood:

> What I don't get is why it has to be referred to as "X, formerly known as Twitter"

> How many people are there in the world who used Twitter or were interested in Twitter but do NOT know that it's now called X? Is it a positive number?

Those uninterested in Twitter but aware of its existance may wonder what the hell you mean?

 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024

I was talking to a non binary person recently and I think they summed up their situation very well by simply saying:

"I just want somewhere safe to pee".

1
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> A risk yes, and one that needs assessing on a case by case basis. Totally agree that it needs to be a cautious approach.

No, you miss my point: the risk is almost completely impossible to assess. It’s a risk that all biological men present, which is why we do not have mixed facilities in many areas of life. 

> What is the percentage of trans prisoners? Obviously we need suitable accommodation but I can't see anyone wanting to pay for it, so for the moment we have to try to accommodate everyone with within the facilities we have.

So we are too cheap to ensure women’s rights to safety are protected? 

> I wasn't in any way trying to suggest that they don't deserve care and protection, just that it's frustrating when people use the complex situation in prisons as an excuse to restrict trans rights everywhere.

I think this is a misreading. The arguments over, say, women’s shelters, don’t rely on prisons being a certain way but stand on their own merits. The gender critical position is well thought through and, in my view, goes from first principles rather than requiring lurid prison stories as an “excuse”. 

6
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> No, you miss my point: the risk is almost completely impossible to assess. It’s a risk that all biological men present, which is why we do not have mixed facilities in many areas of life. 

I assume that ALL prisoners regardless of gender are assessed for their risk of committing crimes against other inmates before being placed in an appropriate facility. 

You keep talking about trans women. What about trans men? with that added testosterone they are physically stronger than cis women and likely to be more 'fired up', is it safe to house them in women's facilities? (Sorry playing devil's advocate here to some extent, but trans rights apply to both genders)

> So we are too cheap to ensure women’s rights to safety are protected? 

Sadly yes listening to reports of overcrowd and poorly maintained prisons I don't think that the welfare of our prison population is a priority (I'm not for one moment saying I don't think it should be), or that under the current financial climate the tax payer at large would support investment in facilities specifically for trans offenders.

 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> I think transphobia and homophobia are essentially the same thing, and what's evident there is that an 'Overton window' has gradually shifted (or been shifted) over the last 40 years or so making homophobia much less socially acceptable than it was.  I suspect a fair few of those who are currently conducting a "war on woke" would very much like to shift that 'window' back the other way.

Most probably so, but I wouldn't say they were *quite* the same thing - indeed there is the LGB Alliance, which is an anti-trans organisation of gay people.

However, the main anti-trans argument is essentially "I don't want people who might want to sexually assault me having access to my spaces where I'm not fully clothed and am thus more vulnerable", and the bigot's easy extension of that is also to apply it to gay people.  So on that you're probably right.

It is of note, though, that measures like individual non-gender-specific fully-enclosed changing cubicles or toilets also solve this alleged "problem", so it is curious that most of the outspoken campaigners against trans rights seem not to want this.  Which leads me to think it is simply transphobia and bigotry, and not genuine concern for cis women at all.

Post edited at 12:16
3
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> I assume that ALL prisoners regardless of gender are assessed for their risk of committing crimes against other inmates before being placed in an appropriate facility. 


Yes, but we separate men and women in prisons for the same reason that we do in sport - the vast average difference in physical abilities. 

> You keep talking about trans women. What about trans men? with that added testosterone they are physically stronger than cis women and likely to be more 'fired up', is it safe to house them in women's facilities? (Sorry playing devil's advocate here to some extent, but trans rights apply to both genders)

That’s a good question and not at all playing devils advocate. For a start, we know that the population of transmen has some differences in the route they get there, eg a predominance of depressed teenage girls, vs for example the many middle aged men who transition, quite often for sexual reasons (based on what they say rather than any prejudice on my part). So that to me suggests that there may be some difference in risk profile. In addition lots of trans women haven’t had medical interventions (or haven’t had the full suite) so remain biologically male, and I would hope we can agree that poses a problem in certain situations.

I’ve not seen any data on how FtM transition affects patterns of criminal behaviour so it’s still hard to say, but of course the majority of men will be physically bigger than transmen for obvious reasons. So it’s hard to tell right now how the balance of threat vs under threat really works. 
 

> Sadly yes listening to reports of overcrowd and poorly maintained prisons I don't think that the welfare of our prison population is a priority (I'm not for one moment saying I don't think it should be), or that under the current financial climate the tax payer at large would support investment in facilities specifically for trans offenders.

It’s clear we are going to have to either build some more prisons or be more lenient on criminals. Given the wild unpopularity of the later, I suspect new prisons are going to happen. It’s not impossible to include some segregated facilities for trans prisoners in such a scheme. 

2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Which leads me to think it is simply transphobia and bigotry, and not genuine concern for cis women at all.

Many gender critical women have spent their entire careers as feminist writers, thinkers and campaigners. Julie Bindel, for example, was campaigning against male violence when the Yorkshire Ripper was still at large. Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to claim that someone such as Ms Bindel is not acting from “genuine concern for cis women” simply because she rejects your favoured solution? Would that not even be a potentially libellous comment?

2
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Most probably so, but I wouldn't say they were *quite* the same thing - indeed there is the LGB Alliance, which is an anti-trans organisation of gay people.

True, I'm over stating the case a bit.

> It is of note, though, that measures like individual non-gender-specific fully-enclosed changing cubicles or toilets also solve this alleged "problem", so it is curious that most of the outspoken campaigners against trans rights seem not to want this. 

Perhaps in part because it gives the lie to the oft repeated assertion that facilities are segregated specifically for reasons of women's safety, as opposed that mainly just being a historical hang-over from the Victorians.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-B...

> Which leads me to think it is simply transphobia and bigotry, and not genuine concern for cis women at all.

I think there might be a bit of an overlap on a Venn diagram of those who say "trans-women are men and therefore present a serious danger to 'real' women" (not on this thread or forum specifically), and those we often see strenuously reminding us that "not all men" are a danger to women and that 'predatory' men do exist but they're only a tiny minority in other discussions.

 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Yes, but we separate men and women in prisons for the same reason that we do in sport - the vast average difference in physical abilities. 

[citation needed]

2
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

Rationally, how can a fully enclosed, single-user, floor to ceiling cubicle (such as those found in most coffee places) not be safer for women than a shared facility?

The answer is that it cannot.

As such, there has to be another motivation.  I absolutely believe Rowling is a bigot, not because of her views on the suggested solution because I've never discussed that with her, but because of her general conduct in e.g. wilfully misgendering people when the debate can be had without doing so, so the only possible motivation to wilfully cause upset by doing so in the debate is bigotry and transphobia.  I've never heard of the other woman you mention, so it's hard to suggest my views could have been aimed at her.

It is entirely possible to debate the issues without using language designed to upset trans people, which most (but sadly not all) people on this thread are managing to do.

Post edited at 12:59
4
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> That’s a good question and not at all playing devils advocate. For a start, we know that the population of transmen has some differences in the route they get there, eg a predominance of depressed teenage girls, vs for example the many middle aged men who transition, quite often for sexual reasons (based on what they say rather than any prejudice on my part). So that to me suggests that there may be some difference in risk profile. In addition lots of trans women haven’t had medical interventions (or haven’t had the full suite) so remain biologically male, and I would hope we can agree that poses a problem in certain situations.

As far as I'm aware the opportunity/acceptance of transitioning is still a very new thing, hence the need for updating of rights for trans people now. I wonder how many of the middle aged trans men have been able to quietly find a happy place, were as thanks to our societies prejudice in clothing and behaviour middle aged trans women have never had the opportunity to explore their identity.

As for medical interventions, have you any idea how long it takes to just get a diagnosis of gender disphoria? Or the cost (almost certainly not covered by the NHS) of reassessment surgery? Transitioning is not a quick process so no wonder that many genuinely trans people do not compete the physical transition, but perhaps more importantly those who have completed are highly likely to be genuinely trans.

Also just to highlight, I do not recognise predatory men who disguise themselves as women for sexual reasons as anything but men. A genuinely trans woman is (in her mind) a woman and where possible should be respected as such.

3
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

>   I've never heard of the other woman you mention, so it's hard to suggest my views could have been aimed at her.

You wrote: “it is curious that most of the outspoken campaigners against trans rights seem not to want this”. Ms Bindel is one of those people to whom you refer, a very prominent campaigner whose writing appears in lots of newspapers. And yet you’ve apparently not heard of her. Perhaps you’re just not that interesting in hearing and trying to understand opposing views on the matter? God forbid, are you just taking the “correct” position for social cachet, and damn the consequences?

6
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

My position is, as with many things, in the middle.

I don't fully agree with Stonewall's position; in particular I think moving purely to self-ID would be fraught with challenges, for instance.  I equally don't agree with the principle that one should have to show one's birth certificate to enter a toilet facility (not least because that's impractical).  I also think we need to be *very* careful about carrying out irreversible surgery and the likes on children.

I do however fundamentally believe in "be kind".  It's a difficult debate and one with many facets and challenges.  It needs to be had, but it needs to be had civilly and with respect for trans people as a minority - people who just want to be able to live their lives.  As such, I will call out as bigotry unnecessary anti-trans language, such as misgendering.  If in doubt, within the debate, simply use gender-neutral language i.e. they/them - that won't offend anyone.

The debate is not made any better by wilfully calling trans women men.  Anyone who is doing that is just being bigoted.

Post edited at 13:16
2
 Luke90 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

So if I were to list a whole bunch of Trans rights campaigners who've appeared in national newspapers, you would have heard of every single one of them? Or are you also not interested in opposing views? Or, perhaps, that's just an entirely unreasonable standard to hold someone to?

5
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

> So if I were to list a whole bunch of Trans rights campaigners who've appeared in national newspapers, you would have heard of every single one of them? Or are you also not interested in opposing views? Or, perhaps, that's just an entirely unreasonable standard to hold someone to?

Why don't you list them and find out? As I said, I've certainly heard of the likes of Judith Butler, Julia Serano, Caitlyn Jenner, Owen Jones, etc, to the point of suggesting above that a poster reads one of them to deepen his understanding of the issue. But if you're going to make a claim like "prominent campaigners against trans ideology are not really interested in women's rights" then it would probably be a good idea to be familiar with the work of prominent campaigners against trans ideology? You know, to check whether the statement is in fact true.

I picked Bindel out because she's a particularly obvious and clearcut case. But I could have made it with many prominent gender critical feminists. It's not a difficult point to refute.

Post edited at 13:40
2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Yes, but we separate men and women in prisons for the same reason that we do in sport - the vast average difference in physical abilities. 

> [citation needed]

I don't think I need a citation for the claim that on average men are taller and larger than women, although I could almost certainly find one if the evidence of, I don't know, just being alive for a bit were inadequate.

The views of an elite sportswoman also aren't perhaps as scientifically valid as you might be after, but I'm going to chuck them in here anyway. This is Serena Williams, when asked in 2013 if she would play Andy Murray:

"Actually it’s funny, because Andy Murray, he’s been joking about myself and him playing a match. I’m like, ‘Andy, seriously, are you kidding me?’ For me, mens’ tennis and womens’ tennis are completely, almost, two separate sports. If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes. No, it’s true. It’s a completely different sport. The men are a lot faster and they serve harder, they hit harder, it’s just a different game. I love to play women’s tennis. I only want to play girls, because i don’t want to be embarrassed."

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/08/serena-williams-playing-men-andy-murray

Now that's not a citation, but it is a view of a professional sportswoman who has presumably had time to observe these sex differences, what with it being part of her job and all.

Would the article "Comparing Athletic Performances: The Best Elite Women to Boys and Men" from the Duke Law School's Centre for Sports Law and Policy sway you at all?

To quote: "Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys."

The article includes several tables to show how male athletes vastly outperform female athletes across a range of track and field events and a discussion of why this is the result of innate physical differences and not access to better resources or superior training.

https://web.law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/centers/sportslaw/comparingath...

If you wish to quibble with the word "average", then the Science of Sport podcast has several in-depth discussions of why that average difference matters. If you can't find them on your own I can certainly point you in the right direction.

 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

To be fair another way I don't agree with Stonewall is that I do think segregation by biology is necessary in competitive sport* for the reasons you outline.  However, I'd rename the categories Open and Female.  In part because why shouldn't elite women compete against men if they want (Williams clearly doesn't, but others might), and in part because that is nicer to trans people with no disadvantage at all to anyone else.

As I said, there are practical issues that need to be debated and addressed, but being kind while doing so costs nothing.

* Parkrun is not what I would consider competitive sport, though if they still want categories I'd change those to Open and Female as well, though they aren't in a position to check who does what so people can't realistically have that expectation.

Post edited at 14:08
1
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> I don't think I need a citation for the claim that on average men are taller and larger than women

Nor do I.

 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> I don't think I need a citation for the claim that on average men are taller and larger than women

> Nor do I.

Well, they're kind of important attributes if you want to intimidate or assault another human being.

 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Well, they're kind of important attributes if you want to intimidate or assault another human being.

Potentially but not necessarily.  Which is irrelevant to your claim that "the vast average difference in physical abilities" is the reason that we have separate prisons for women and men. 

ie: the claim for which [citation needed]

4
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Potentially but not necessarily.  Which is irrelevant to your claim that "the vast average difference in physical abilities" is the reason that we have separate prisons for women and men. 

> ie: the claim for which [citation needed]

I think it's pretty straightforward: prisons that were mixed would be hotbeds of sexual assault, rape and intimidation by the male prisoners against the female. You can prattle on all you like about Victorian prudishness but it fails the smell test.

 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I'm sure Bindel considers herself acting in what she considers cis women's best interest, tbh, it's just that she's also an awful transphobe. She's said some pretty deplorable things over the years. Is that in service of cis women? I think she actually is a reactionary who just finds trans women repulsive and justifies that post hoc

2
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

Plenty of cis women who if it came to brute strength or size would win a fight over an average man.

Nicola Adams isn't even tall for a woman, but how many of you would want to get on the wrong side of her? Yet as a cis woman nobody would question her right to access women's safe spaces.

Should all men under 5' be treated as women because they are physically small, or women over 6' treated as men because of their size? No obviously not, in society we all come in different shapes and physiques and an average is just that.

Serena Williams night lose against top ranking male players, but I bet she'd easily win a tennis match against anyone off ukc.

3
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> I think it's pretty straightforward: prisons that were mixed would be hotbeds of sexual assault, rape and intimidation by the male prisoners against the female. You can prattle on all you like about Victorian prudishness but it fails the smell test.

Victorian prudishness certainly plays a part in many areas of society, but am inclined to agree that prisons are one area where gender segregation is for the best.

Still doesn't solve the ultimate question though, which is how you place transgender inmates to ensure both their and their fellow inmates safety? We effectively have an extra two (three if you include non binary) genders to accommodate, with each individual having different physical attributes.

 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Plenty of cis women who if it came to brute strength or size would win a fight over an average man.

Plenty? A very few, but not plenty. Otherwise I'd expect to see "plenty" of women acting like average men in the way they approach, say, walking about alone at night. I do not see plenty of women behaving in this way. It's worth taking a look at the Duke Law article to see just how elite performance in sport differs, and then to extrapolate that a little towards us ordinary mortals.

> Nicola Adams isn't even tall for a woman, but how many of you would want to get on the wrong side of her? Yet as a cis woman nobody would question her right to access women's safe spaces.

If you have to choose a professional fighter to make your argument about physical safety, then it's not a relevant argument for the vast majority of the population.

> Should all men under 5' be treated as women because they are physically small, or women over 6' treated as men because of their size? No obviously not, in society we all come in different shapes and physiques and an average is just that.

Yes, there will always be larger and smaller people in any population. But you're talking about extremes - in the UK around 0.04% of women are 6ft or taller and 0.03% of men are under 5ft. Whereas about 14% of men are over 6ft - it's really much, much more common. And when it comes to height, women are "more average" than men, ie the standard deviation of their heights is lower. And in fact we do have different categories of prisons to help deal with inmates that may be more or less of a threat to fellow inmates, staff or the general public, so we don't need to treat small men as women, we can just treat them as vulnerable men.

> Serena Williams night lose against top ranking male players, but I bet she'd easily win a tennis match against anyone off ukc.

The point about sport is that it's about matching people who are similar in the distribution. Again, worth checking out the Science of Sport podcast if you're interested in the arguments about this, which are somewhat more complex than "a female professional athelete would beat an untrained amateur".

2
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> I think it's pretty straightforward:

So no [citation] then.  Thought not.

> prisons that were mixed would be hotbeds of sexual assault, rape and intimidation by the male prisoners against the female.

If they all were, especially if they remained as dysfunctional as ours are at the moment, undoubtedly so.  (Since physical size is everything for you though, presumably you'd be happy with a mixed prison so long as it housed only small men and big women?)

Nevertheless, this is not the reason that prisons originally became single-sex, nor is it a compelling reason why there could be no mixed facilities at all now.

Since our prisons are currently completely borked, overwhelmed and overcrowded anyway there is clearly a pressing need for something to be done, perhaps it would be a good idea for some new facilities set up to deal with particularly difficult cases while we're at it.  Prisoners who are perhaps both dangerous and vulnerable, and those that are most difficult to deal with for people who have the unenviable responsibility to both protect society from them and also to treat them reasonably humanely, rather than having the luxury of just being able to make bold black and white pronouncements from a position of pure dogma.

5
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> ..but am inclined to agree that prisons are one area where gender segregation is for the best.

As am I, in general.  It undoubtedly is for the best in most cases, but I don't think that's any reason that mixed facilities shouldn't exist at all.

1
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I think she actually is a reactionary

By reactionary do you mean as a general political orientation? Or is being gender critical enough to merit that designation, even if the rest of one’s politics is impeccably left wing? 

 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I think that "gender critical" views are indeed largely just reactionary bigotry dressed up as some kind of intellectual position, yes. I think these people are made uncomfortable by the existence of trans people and base their views on that. I also don't think that being "impeccably left wing" (whatever that is) makes for an excuse for transphobia either.

4
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> So no [citation] then.  Thought not.

Okay, let’s turn this around. I’m perfectly willing to read any information you have on mixed prisons and data on their safety record. 

> (Since physical size is everything for you though, presumably you'd be happy with a mixed prison so long as it housed only small men and big women?)

No, physical size is matched with increased aggression; as I said above, committing crime is an almost entirely male activity. When they do commit crime, it’s of a different type: more acquisitive crime, less violent, serious or organised crime. Women constitute only 2% of those prosecuted for sexual crime. Their sentences tend to be much shorter.

So we’re talking about two very different populations, with differing requirements for the safety of inmates and staff. 

Lots of stuff on this here:

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/research/the-evidence-...

> Nevertheless, this is not the reason that prisons originally became single-sex, nor is it a compelling reason why there could be no mixed facilities at all now.

The most compelling  reason is of course rehabilitation. Female offenders are just very different to male ones, and the factors driving them to crime are different. That means if they are to change their lives then they will need different sorts of interventions, for example less anger management courses and more help around substance abuse. Women are more likely to be the primary carers for their children, so visiting facilities may have to take that into account.

There are many reasons why a decent prison service would be segregated along sex lines. 


 

2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I think that "gender critical" views are indeed largely just reactionary bigotry dressed up as some kind of intellectual position, yes.

Sounds like you basically don’t respect women thinkers when they think things you don’t like. This also gives you an excuse not to have to deal with what those women think. Are you scared in case they are cleverer than you?  It would certainly explain your reluctance to actually debate these issues rather than blast out anger at those who disagree with you. 

> I think these people are made uncomfortable by the existence of trans people and base their views on that.


You’re imputing the emotion of disgust into people where none exists. As I said above, there is a difference between the gender critical position (which I don’t think is motivated by disgust) and the conservative position (which might well be). Many GC writers have been very clear to repute the allegations of motivation by disgust. Are you aware of this? If so, do you think they are basically lying?

7
 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I don't respect bigotry, regardless of origin, no, what's that got to do with disregarding women? Their are plenty of "gender critical" men out there, who support and hold those views. I'm well aware of what they are, just as I'm well aware of homophobic arguments etc. Which, I'll note, transphobic arguments basically are; essentially we just get rehashed 90s era homophobia (think of the children/they're all predators/etc).

Frankly the extent to which certain people base their entire personality around repeatedly attacking a tiny minority of people who experience regular discrimination is rather tragic, it's hard for me to take anyone like that seriously at all, if it wasn't for how much they upset many people I know and love.

4
 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Okay, let’s turn this around.

Yeah, lets not.  You're not interested in providing the [citation needed] and that's fine.  I'll leave you to your gish-gallop.

Post edited at 17:37
6
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Yeah, lets not.  You're not interested in providing the [citation needed] and that's fine.  I'll leave you to your gish-gallop.

I misunderstood your meaning, my apologies. It’s funny how it suddenly becomes a “gish gallop” when you’re asked to produce some evidence to back up your views. 

4
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I don't respect bigotry, regardless of origin, no, what's that got to do with disregarding women? There are plenty of "gender critical" men out there, who support and hold those views. I'm well aware of what they are, just as I'm well aware of homophobic arguments etc. Which, I'll note, transphobic arguments basically are; essentially we just get rehashed 90s era homophobia (think of the children/they're all predators/etc).

I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not asking you to respect bigotry. I’m asking you to respect the people making those arguments just enough for you to read their views and come up with a reasoned argument for why they are wrong. Only by looking at what they actually say can you really even come to a conclusion as to whether there is bigotry or a genuine intellectual case. This is the difference between refusing to deal with a bunch of far right street thugs and coming up with a reasoned answer to right wing philosopher Roger Scruton. The people you’re having a go at are basically intellectuals. Why not at least do them the respect of encountering them on that terrain?
 

Unfortunately we see your ignorance of the gender critical argument with your “rehashed homophobia” line. That is simply not the case, especially since there are homosexual men and women making them.

Here’s an article my feminist thinker (she holds a PhD in feminist philosophy) Jane Clare Jones taking that argument apart:

https://janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare...

Here’s a few extracts which I hope give the essence of the argument:

”The discourse of ‘homophobia’ fundamentally relies on the idea that gay-people are discriminated against on the basis of moral disgust. And inside that are two more interwoven ideas. One, that moral disgust is not a legitimate basis for telling people what not to do… Two, that because discrimination against homosexuality was entirely mediated by moral disgust, there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for that discrimination…

“This structure has basically been transferred wholesale to the concept of ‘transphobia.’ 

“The use of the concept of ‘homophobia’ to dismiss objections to gay rights carried a ton of weight because the basis for a legitimate moral or political objection would be that something causes a harm, and in the case of gay rights there is a complete dearth of convincing arguments as to why homosexuality is a harm.

“But this is precisely where the ‘homophobia-transphobia’ parallel falls completely apart. Because in the case of the trans rights agenda there is actually a load of potential harms we might reasonably be worried about.

“The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence. Moreover, it turns out – who knew? – that male people have the inclination and social power to exert extreme coercive pressure on female people, and to court the sympathy and support of other males when they do so. (It’s almost as if sex is a thing and that it has something to do with power after all mmmm?).”

Post edited at 18:04
2
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> As am I, in general.  It undoubtedly is for the best in most cases, but I don't think that's any reason that mixed facilities shouldn't exist at all.

Yes I can see the argument for some mixing of genders in social settings within prisons (for certain inmates), afterall once released people will be returning to a mixed society so practicing how to interact with the opposite gender is important. I believe there is an argument at schools that boys behaviour is improved in a mixed gender environment, so maybe the same would apply for men???

Post edited at 18:28
3
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

I think it also depends what they are in prison for.  Clearly sex offenders require more segregation and supervision than petty thieves or fraudsters.

1
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not asking you to respect bigotry. I’m asking you to respect the people making those arguments just enough for you to read their views and come up with a reasoned argument for why they are wrong. Only by looking at what they actually say can you really even come to a conclusion as to whether there is bigotry or a genuine intellectual case. This is the difference between refusing to deal with a bunch of far right street thugs and coming up with a reasoned answer to right wing philosopher Roger Scruton. The people you’re having a go at are basically intellectuals. Why not at least do them the respect of encountering them on that terrain?

If they'll be kind* enough not to directly refer to trans women as "men" I'm happy to engage with them.  I will only respect peoples' argument if they will respect people who disagree with it, even if they don't agree with the argument the other side is making.

Rowling and Davies fail on this, as is evident from their X/Twitter output.  Perhaps the more academic feminists you mention are a little more appropriate in their choice of debating language so as to debate abstracted issues rather than directly seeking to use language that will upset and offend other people?

* As you'll notice, most of my argument surrounds this - as you'll see from above postings I by no means totally support Stonewall's line - I'm actually somewhere down the middle, as I often am in politics.

Post edited at 20:48
3
 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think it also depends what they are in prison for.  Clearly sex offenders require more segregation and supervision than petty thieves or fraudsters.

100% 

 planetmarshall 03 Jul 2024
In reply to wintertree:

> So your caveman is richer.  In fact he’s richer than the numbers suggest, as most of Musk’s net worth comes from shares, and he’s in a situation where if he tried to cash them all out their value would likely plummet.

I believe the typical strategy of the fantastically rich is to borrow cash from banks using their capital assets as collateral, the interest rate on which is pitifully low compared to the income tax they would pay if it were declared as actual income.

I have no opinions on Rowling's position on gender but I believe she is probably one of the UK's highest tax payers, despite the fact that other avenues are open to her. Although giving her credit for this somehow reminds me of a famous Chris Rock routine...you probably know the one I mean.

1
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If they'll be kind* enough not to directly refer to trans women as "men" I'm happy to engage with them.  I will only respect peoples' argument if they will respect people who disagree with it, even if they don't agree with the argument the other side is making.

There are good reasons to oppose what you say, but for the sake of brevity and actually getting somewhere, let’s put those to one side for a moment. How about instead of saying you would consider discussing the gender critical argument I posted, how about actually discussing it? You have a quote! You have a link to the whole thing! It seems to pass your acceptability test! Go for it! 

2
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think it also depends what they are in prison for.  Clearly sex offenders require more segregation and supervision than petty thieves or fraudsters.

If someone’s only in prison for tax evasion, they can’t possibly be a murderer.

1
 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I don't respect the people making those arguments because they are bigoted and I am actually pretty well versed in the things they say, so I have no real need to be lectured on them by you (or desire, to be clear).

I'm also not interested in debating them with you because 1) I'm never going to persuade you, am I and 2) again, I'm not prepared to entertain arguments made in defence of bigotry by people who refuse to treat trans women (and let's be real, it is women) as being the gender they are. I mean you've literally said in this thread that there's good reason to misgender people, so it's fair to say I hardly hold you in any sort of regard

Post edited at 21:27
5
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I don't respect the people making those arguments because they are bigoted and I am actually pretty well versed in the things they say.


You don’t have to respect someone that much to debate them. I think Trump is despicable but I would debate any serious supporter of his. You say you’re well versed in gender critical arguments, yet when you précis those arguments, you get them wrong. So I’m not convinced you do; you’re basically marking your own homework. 

> I'm also not interested in debating them with you because 1) I'm never going to persuade you, am I

You misunderstood the point of debate. It’s not to persuade the person you’re talking to, it’s to persuade the readers/listeners. 

and 2) again, I'm not prepared to entertain arguments made in defence of bigotry.

You’re not prepared to beat them, either. So much allyship!

> I mean you've literally said in this thread that there's good reason to misgender people, so it's fair to say I hardly hold you in any sort of regard

Well, my argument would be sex is primary and more important than gender in many circumstances, it’s immutable, so needs naming. So not really mis-gendering people, as I’m describing their sex, not their gender. So no, not a correct description of what I think. See what I mean? Your grasp isn’t that good. 
 

Hold me in whatever regard you like, but you do realise that sometimes successfully putting forward one’s ideas means dealing with people you find odious. Purity circles don’t really work in public debate. 

Post edited at 21:35
8
 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I am an ally, yes, hence me taking the time in this thread to call out transphobia despite my knowing that engaging in this argument on the internet is largely a waste of time. Not that spilling some words makes one an ally but I am engaged in all this in other ways so I'm at least trying to do my bit. Unlike you it would appear, who would seem to hold some quite unpleasant views.

Fortunately the younger generations seem to be much more of the accepting and trans positive and so I live in hope that your position will one day be a sad footnote in history.

4
 planetmarshall 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Serena Williams night lose against top ranking male players, but I bet she'd easily win a tennis match against anyone off ukc.

I suspect Williams, even at her peak, would have been crushed by any male player in the top 100.

Yet I'd be surprised if even the most gifted of amateurs could even return one of her serves.

Eilte sportspeople are outliers by definition, and I definitely wouldn't use them to make any kind of statistical argument (unless it's about said outliers).

 Jenny C 03 Jul 2024
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Eilte sportspeople are outliers by definition, and I definitely wouldn't use them to make any kind of statistical argument (unless it's about said outliers).

That was kind of my point. An average by its very definition includes outliers, so excluding trans women because they 'may' be bigger/stronger than the average cis woman isn't entirely logical, unless you also exclude outlying cis women (which I don't think anyone is suggesting).

1
 seankenny 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I am an ally, yes, hence me taking the time in this thread to call out transphobia despite my knowing that engaging in this argument on the internet is largely a waste of time. Not that spilling some words makes one an ally but I am engaged in all this in other ways so I'm at least trying to do my bit. Unlike you it would appear, who would seem to hold some quite unpleasant views.

Views which you’ve made no serious effort to even counter. People can think and change as a result of their interactions with others, but that requires some conversation. Political battles do require that, a fact that many liberal-left types seem to have forgotten. Full of passionate intensity and all that. 

4
 wercat 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> If someone’s only in prison for tax evasion, they can’t possibly be a murderer.

For clarity, are you alluding to Al Capone?

Post edited at 21:59
 Andrew Wells 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I'm not going to "debate" you Sean, no matter how many transparent attempts you make to bait me with various implied insults. Again, I felt like someone needed to call out the transphobia in this thread; I'm not interested in a lecture from you. Enjoy your evening. 

Post edited at 22:05
3
 planetmarshall 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> That was kind of my point. An average by its very definition includes outliers, so excluding trans women because they 'may' be bigger/stronger than the average cis woman isn't entirely logical, unless you also exclude outlying cis women (which I don't think anyone is suggesting).

Whilst this argument does make logical sense, I suspect that in reality any (biological) women capable of competing with a (biological) man in elite sport is probably going to fall afoul of testosterone limits, or similar - as we've already seen in exceptional cases like Caster Semenya.

Whenever this topic comes up I think of the women's 100m record - now nearly 40 years old - set by Florence Griffith-Joyner, widely believed to be drugged up to the eyeballs a the time (along with just about everyone else). Yet even that time is routinely broken by male high school athletes from the US and Jamaica every year.

 deepsoup 03 Jul 2024
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Eilte sportspeople are outliers by definition, and I definitely wouldn't use them to make any kind of statistical argument (unless it's about said outliers).

Couldn't agree more, but even so I bet there are quite a few more elite sportspeople in the UK than there are trans sex offenders serving prison sentences*.

And yet these are the two groups seankenny is wanting to use as the basis for denying ordinary trans people just trying to get through their everyday lives the ability to judge for themselves which loo it would be more appropriate for them to use in a restaurant, cinema or supermarket.

*(Don't know about the former, but the latter was 81 individuals across England and Wales in 2019 according to this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offenc... )

4
 Andsomemore 03 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I'm well aware of homophobic arguments etc. Which, I'll note, transphobic arguments basically are; essentially we just get rehashed 90s era homophobia (think of the children/they're all predators/etc).

That's a false equivalence. Especially as, clearly, nobody is saying that trans people are all predators. Not even that the majority of them are. Or anything other than a tiny minority.

What is implicitly being said however is that trans-women, in some circumstances cannot be treated as actual women (for the same reasons that men cannot be). Despite however much we may want to.

That seems to be a perfectly acceptable standpoint....except that this sliver of nuance flies in the face of the religiously adopted mantras of 'trans women are women' and 'anyone is whatever they identify as'. 

Departing from that narrative, exposing it as at least questionable, blows apart a core tenant of trans activism - which it was seemingly hoped, if repeated often enough, would simply be accepted as indisputable fact.

Unfortunately, some men, whether trans or not, are a disproportionate risk to women. That risk does not go away simply by defining oneself as trans. It doesn't go away when a man opportunistically declares themselves trans. It doesn't go away when a man adopts classically female gender characteristics. About the only circumstances where I believe the risk to be negated is once someone has undergone full gender reassignment surgery. But that seems to be an increasingly small subset of trans (essentially so when self-ID is all that is required). 

> Frankly the extent to which certain people base their entire personality around repeatedly attacking a tiny minority of people who experience regular discrimination is rather tragic, it's hard for me to take anyone like that seriously at all, if it wasn't for how much they upset many people I know and love.

Can you not accept that as much as some trans people may feel threatened by anything less than full female rights, some females may feel threatened by women-only spaces being re-defined to include anyone, right up to a man who on a whim decides he is a woman?

That isn't an 'attack'. Rather it is competing rights and obligations in a complex situation.

 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Well, my argument would be sex is primary and more important than gender in many circumstances, it’s immutable, so needs naming. So not really mis-gendering people, as I’m describing their sex, not their gender.

However, by doing so directly to an individual (if you would do that) you're wilfully upsetting people.  Thus the credibility of your argument is reduced.

The argument is not weaker if you avoid upsetting people by using e.g. the four terms "cis man", "trans man", "cis woman" and "trans woman".  That still allows you to say that a trans woman and a cis woman aren't entirely the same thing (which they indeed aren't - as I've said I don't agree with all of Stonewall's stuff), but also says (and this is important) that a trans woman and a cis man are not entirely the same thing either.

Or if you really hate the term "cis", you could at least describe them as a "natal male" or "birth male" or "biological male", which while less ideal at least recognises their transition.

As I keep saying, be kind.  It's people you're talking about here, people with feelings who just want to live in society.

This insistence on using terminology that is known to upset and offend when used directly with regard to trans people is just like the way some older people insist on continuing to use dated, now offensive terms for e.g. Black or gay people.  And that's (obviously) not OK either.

Post edited at 00:09
4
 Neil Williams 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

I've had a quick read through the linked article and I think it contains a number of possible fallacies.  I've bookmarked it for a proper read on the train on the way home.

 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

If you are a trans ally, I really don't think you are doing your cause any good in this thread. Just doing little more than calling people bigots or transphobes without actually engaging them reasonably is, I think, one of the reasons this whole debate has become so toxic; it will only serve to entrench opinion. How about saying that you get where they are coming from with their honest concerns but that you think they are actually mistaken and giving your reasons. You might even win the debate.

5
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> Can you not accept that as much as some trans people may feel threatened by anything less than full female rights, some females may feel threatened by women-only spaces being re-defined to include anyone, right up to a man who on a whim decides he is a woman?

This thread, along with pretty much all media attention that I've seen is focusing almost exclusively on trans women and their threat to the safety of cis women.

It's not always clear from a posters username, so I wonder hhow many posters in this thread who are raising objections to trans women being accepted in female only spaces are actually female? It's 2024, surely it's time that women's voices are listened to, rather than (yet again) having decisions that primarily affect us being made in our behalf by men.

Yes of course it's great that men are part of a discussion that affects all of society, but it feels to me like some men on here perceive being trans as a gateway to access women, rather than being open to the idea that being trans is a personal journey that has nothing to do with sex.

And I think there is a clear difference between a trans woman and a man who decides on a whim to dress as a woman. I personally do not support the idea of self declaration of gender disphoria, although given the long waits (typically 5+ years on the NHS!) for diagnosis and inevitable pressure on mental health of being forced to live in the 'wrong' body, I do have sympathy with those calling for it.

2
 Pedro50 04 Jul 2024
In reply to thread.

I apologise for derailing this thread by suggesting that JKR was an example of a billionaire who was not pathologically egotistical. May I suggest Taylor Swift as a less controversial alternative. 😀

1
 Niall_H 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Here’s an article my feminist thinker (she holds a PhD in feminist philosophy) Jane Clare Jones taking that argument apart:

Her claim that there isn't a strong parallel between current transphobia and 80s/90s style homophobia seems to rest on her assertion that the events of the 80s/90s were based on purely moral disgust grounds, without anyone claiming to have substantive concerns, which ignores the history of measures like Section 28 of the Local Government Act and the, very loudly expressed at the time, fears about how acceptance of gay folks would lead to redefinitions of both the family and marriage.  Once you include the importance that those had ascribed to them at the time, her claim of a substantive difference looks very wobbly indeed.

2
 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Pedro50:

> In reply to thread.

> I apologise for derailing this thread by suggesting that JKR was an example of a billionaire who was not pathologically egotistical. May I suggest Taylor Swift as a less controversial alternative. 😀

I think all billionaires are by their nature so totally divorced from the realm of normal human experience, that I find it hard to believe pretty much all of them don't have serious psychological issues. Maybe there are some billionaire "dark horses" out there, but I doubt it.

As for Swift - there's no way that a billionaire who spends large amounts of time being universally adored by huge crowds is not pathologically egotistical

1
 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> It's 2024, surely it's time that women's voices are listened to, rather than (yet again) having decisions that primarily affect us being made in our behalf by men.

I'm male, but this discussion comes up a lot for me and the women I know are unanimous. I don't doubt there are many I don't know who don't care, or for whom ally-ship with trans people trumps any private concerns they may have. But for those around me, including a couple within the 'community', this is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. 

> trans women and their threat to the safety of cis women.

Again, this isn't so much about the threat of 'trans women'. It is the threat of men, which is opened up when you muddy the line as to who is allowed into single-sex or reserved spaces. To acknowledge that does require one to challenge trans activism dogma though.

It is also about the sorts of demands being made that males and females (both have daughters, wives, mothers, and girlfriends) must accept, despite the arguments being internally inconsistent.

Not accepting these demands prima facie, or not adopting the language expected, apparently means one is a transphobe. And to be a transphobe is the millennial equivalent of being a homophobe. And to be a homophobe is to be a bigot and on the wrong side of history. And to dispute that starting point means one is trying to ignite a culture war that apparently doesn't exist.

So reasonable debate is made almost impossible and people are terrified of getting involved.

> open to the idea that being trans is a personal journey that has nothing to do with sex.

Is it to do with sex or not?

> And I think there is a clear difference between a trans woman and a man who decides on a whim to dress as a woman.

Unfortunately, the dogmatic view of many is that there is no substantial grey area. Or that the only outlier example is the stereotypical male-in-a-dress. But there is a lot that can be challenged.

Take for instance the issue of pronouns. Why should I accept them? In nearly all cases I will, unless someone is clearly being obtuse. I do resent though having to play along with a grown adult's delusion. To use a couple of well known examples, Blair White or Buck Angel I would have no issue referring to as she and him respectively. But I absolutely support a news satire site being able to call Rachel Levine 'Man of the Year' without being declared in violation of hate speech laws and shut down. Equally, is it 'hateful' to not be willing to play along with some university student's demand that I respect their neo-pronouns of demon/demonper/demis today, which were zher/zhay/zhes yesterday?

9
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Niall_H:

> Her claim that there isn't a strong parallel between current transphobia and 80s/90s style homophobia seems to rest on her assertion that the events of the 80s/90s were based on purely moral disgust grounds, without anyone claiming to have substantive concerns, which ignores the history of measures like Section 28 of the Local Government Act and the, very loudly expressed at the time, fears about how acceptance of gay folks would lead to redefinitions of both the family and marriage.  Once you include the importance that those had ascribed to them at the time, her claim of a substantive difference looks very wobbly indeed.

So you believe that wasn’t motivated by moral disgust? I think that’s naive. Those things were important because they attempted to keep gay people in the closet, but they had their roots the same disgust with homosexuality. It was an attempt to banish homosexuality by simply not talking about it to young people. And the reason they wanted to banish homosexuality is disgust. That emotion was expressed very clearly throughout society at the time - I can remember this very well. In contrast, this thread has had no expressions of disgust. Instead it’s talking about competing rights and safety. 
 

I can’t say I’ve seen many arguments from the GC side about “redefinitions of the family”. Of course there is concern that children are being given life changing medical treatment on the basis of very weak evidence, but that’s also a substantive point: the gay rights movement was asking to be left alone to live freely, not made permanent consumers of expensive pharmaceutical products.

Post edited at 09:50
4
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

For me it is the exact opposite. Supporting TERFism in my social circle would go down about as well as voting for the BNP. I think there's a huge generational divide and, thankfully, one that is going the right way.

4
 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> For me it is the exact opposite. Supporting TERFism in my social circle would go down about as well as voting for the BNP. I think there's a huge generational divide and, thankfully, one that is going the right way.

I don't fully agree.

You are right though, there is a divide - eg. roughly half of those under 25 believe Rowling should be dropped by her publisher, while only 3% or 4% of those over 50 agree. Given the lack of viewpoint diversity in the education sector, I have no doubt such views are being entrenched throughout school and into university.

I'm not sure these sorts of youthful opinions bode well for society though. Such illiberal positions on cancellation will come back and bite anyone. Easy to support when you are in fashion, but a wake-up call when a new fashion comes along. As you say, if you're not in agreement then you are as bad as the BNP - which I don't think is a healthy position to take on people whose crime is simply challenging open access to female spaces and sport (TERFism?). 

I take solace in the fact that nearly everyone I knew in my early 20s was a Marxist to some degree. We all thought the US was the global criminal, loved Che, pills and clubbing, our parents were boing bigots, we never wanted children, or marriage, only open-borders and free education for all, and everyone (those people over there) needed to be more fair and kinder.  

But people change, the world (really actually the realisation you were horribly wrong and naive in many firmly held beliefs) forces most adults to become more nuanced and reappraise old positions.

4
 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> I don't fully agree.

> You are right though, there is a divide - eg. roughly half of those under 25 believe Rowling should be dropped by her publisher, while only 3% or 4% of those over 50 agree...

> I'm not sure these sorts of youthful opinions bode well for society though. Such illiberal positions on cancellation will come back and bite anyone. 

Aye. It does seem that no matter what side of the fence you sit on, cancellation is fine provided it's not your tribe being cancelled.

 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> For me it is the exact opposite. Supporting TERFism in my social circle would go down about as well as voting for the BNP.

Probably not what you intended, but that does make it sound like social pressure is a good reason for supporting one viewpoint over the other. It's certainly *a* reason, and probably a very popular one, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's a good one.

1
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> I'm male, but this discussion comes up a lot for me and the women I know are unanimous. I don't doubt there are many I don't know who don't care, or for whom ally-ship with trans people trumps any private concerns they may have. But for those around me, including a couple within the 'community', this is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. 

I'm a cis woman and wouldn't go so far as to call myself an ally, just someone with compassion who genuinely doesn't have concerns about sharing (most) spaces with trans women. Maybe that's because I've been lucky in life, so naively don't automatically see all men as potential predators.

> Again, this isn't so much about the threat of 'trans women'. It is the threat of men, which is opened up when you muddy the line as to who is allowed into single-sex or reserved spaces. To acknowledge that does require one to challenge trans activism dogma though.

And that goes back to the question if a trans woman is a man in a dress, or a woman born with the wrong body. If you are able to accept the latter, then I see the likelihood of them being a threat to women as no greater than that from any other woman. 

> Not accepting these demands prima facie, or not adopting the language expected, apparently means one is a transphobe. And to be a transphobe is the millennial equivalent of being a homophobe. And to be a homophobe is to be a bigot and on the wrong side of history. And to dispute that starting point means one is trying to ignite a culture war that apparently doesn't exist.

Anyone can respectively use the expected language and yes stubbornly refusing to do so is offensive. However yes there clearly needs to be discussion about use of single gender spaces, and opposing full access for trans women doesn't necessarily make you a transphobe.

> So reasonable debate is made almost impossible and people are terrified of getting involved.

Reasonable debate is important (and mostly has happened in this thread), but hopefully we can all agree that this is a sensitive subject and as such try to discuss it with respectful language. 

> Is it to do with sex or not?

No it's about gender, surely we have already covered with the gay community that sexual identity and gender identity are two different things. I raise sex only because some on here seem to see trans women as male sexual predators, who are going to pounce on any cis woman they encounter.

> Unfortunately, the dogmatic view of many is that there is no substantial grey area. Or that the only outlier example is the stereotypical male-in-a-dress. But there is a lot that can be challenged.

Yes it is a gray area (as it's most of life). Some trans women are I would say 90% women and should be treated as such, others less so and although they deserve equal respect how they are treated may need to to be different according to the environment they are in.

> Take for instance the issue of pronouns. Why should I accept them? In nearly all cases I will, unless someone is clearly being obtuse. I do resent though having to play along with a grown adult's delusion. To use a couple of well known examples, Blair White or Buck Angel I would have no issue referring to as she and him respectively. But I absolutely support a news satire site being able to call Rachel Levine 'Man of the Year' without being declared in violation of hate speech laws and shut down. Equally, is it 'hateful' to not be willing to play along with some university student's demand that I respect their neo-pronouns of demon/demonper/demis today, which were zher/zhay/zhes yesterday?

RESPECT. If I introduce myself as Mrs Jenny why would you decide address me as Miss, or decide to rename me as Jennifer? Well try see using he/she/them/zhay in the same way, by which I mean using whichever one the person introduces themselves as without trying to force your own ideas on their identity. 

Post edited at 11:23
2
 RobAJones 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> You are right though, there is a divide - eg. roughly half of those under 25 believe Rowling should be dropped by her publisher, while only 3% or 4% of those over 50 agree. Given the lack of viewpoint diversity in the education sector, I have no doubt such views are being entrenched throughout school and into university.

By whom? I'm guessing most school leaders are in their 40's/50's. I think you are probably correct that a discussion between secondary school kids will be different the one here, but not sure that is a bad thing and would expect a  modern Clause 28 to be just as ineffective over time. In terms of influencing and entrenching views, amongst teenage boys, I'm much more concerned about the likes of Andrew Tate 

> forces most adults to become more nuanced and reappraise old positions.

Do you think so?  As I alluded to above, racism, homophobia, misogyny etc. are still a problem in schools, but IMO far less than they were at the start of my career. I'm not as convinced the same can be said for pensioners. 

 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

I'd hope that liberal and accepting trans positive views would be prevalent in the education sector and for transphobia to be unacceptable, yes.

Cancellation is a new term which essentially means "people who say horrible things can expect to be criticised for it on social media" and yeah that's fine too imo. 

1
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to planetmarshall:

My point was more that saying "women I know unanimously agree with me" is basically useless as women I know disagree strenuously. There is a deep divide on this and it's not going away although I think in the long run the "Gender Critical" position will fail just as the anti-gay campaigners before them and so on.

1
 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> Cancellation is a new term which essentially means "people who say horrible things can expect to be criticised for it on social media" and yeah that's fine too imo. 

More often than not it seems 'horrible things' are just 'things I disagree with'.

I could say it's horrible that women expressing fear of natal-men in their spaces are called transphobes. I don't think their suspicion (of me, of trans-women) deserves cancellation - no more than those who think they should be cancelled deserve cancellation themselves.

> I'd hope that liberal and accepting trans positive views would be prevalent in the education sector and for transphobia to be unacceptable, yes.

Cancellation, like that unsuccessfully attempted on JKR, is profoundly illiberal.
Well-meaning 'liberalism', that views anyone critical of elements of trans activism as a 'transphobe' and a target for cancellation, is likewise illiberal. 

This will sound far more patronising than I want it to, but what I found with age and watching history unfold was that being profoundly illiberal in the claimed pursuit of liberal goals is all too common. Just believing you are on the 'liberal' side doesn't mean you are, especially when trampling on others.

Post edited at 13:05
2
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

Yes, I disagree with horrible things because they are horrible. Criticising people online for their awful bigoted views is perfectly acceptable. If you're going to defend, say, J K Rowling's right to misgender trans people online I'll defend the right for people to call her a transphobe.

Cancelled just means "receives a lot of criticism" it's not like she's faced legal consequences or financial consequences or anything like that, it's just that she's extremely unpopular amongst certain people who are vocally prepared to say as much online (and these days we actually have the opportunity to do so). She's been cancelled in that she's being called out for her comments. Is it illiberal to do that? I don't think it is. I'm glad she's criticised and called out, either way.

You're right though you do sound quite patronising, water off a duck's back though.

2
 Ramblin dave 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> Well-meaning 'liberalism', that views anyone critical of elements of trans activism as a 'transphobe' and a target for cancellation, is likewise illiberal. 

It's not being "critical of elements of trans activism" that we're talking about, though, is it. Even ignoring minor points of respect and dignity, it's about actively supporting policies under which trans people would basically be unable to exist safely in public places. People try not to spell out the consequences because they want to do this innocent victim act if people say nasty things to them - "oh, all I did was say that women exist, why are these terrible trans activists cancelling me" - but those consequences are real and it's hard not to conclude that they just don't care because they fundamentally hate the existence of trans people.

4
 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Half of under-25s think she should be dropped by her publisher.  That is real cancellation if enacted. And it is a zeitgeist you say you wish for and believe is our destined future.

She's only safe because she is astoundingly wealthy.

But the message is heard loud and clear by everyone else. If you lack the resources she has, stay quiet, don't challenge, don't put your head above the parapet, because you will potentially lose your livelihood (and rightly so, you probably say). Discuss on an anonymous climbing forum, sure. But not in the outside world.

To use a trending term, saying cancellation merely = 'receives a lot of criticism' is gaslighting.

So I'll reiterate, I wouldn't want you to be cancelled for the unpleasant things you are saying about JKR and, by association, most people I know. It's a pity that your liberal idealism is so convinced of itself that it can't extend that back in the other direction.

2
 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Ramblin dave:

An increasing number of spaces have womens, mens, and mixed facilities. The rape crisis center in Scotland can probably function perfectly well without trans staff as much as it can without male staff. Trans people are not being erased. These are solvable issues, which only become unsolvable once an absolutist stance of 'trans woman are women' becomes baked into the bargain.

Likewise, the nuanced conversation about grey areas goes out the window when you start calling people transphobes, the equivalent of BNP supporters, who basically need to die out. Jumping to the assumption JKR and others, against all they have said, 'hate the existence of trans people' dooms the discussion.

4
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> I could say it's horrible that women expressing fear of natal-men in their spaces are called transphobes.

Its totally reasonable to hold a legitimate fear/concern and doing so certainly does not make you transphobic. But deliberately using unkind language to describe trans women does suggest a level of transphobia.

> I don't think their suspicion (of me, of trans-women) deserves cancellation - no more than those who think they should be cancelled deserve cancellation themselves.

The moment someone deliberately resorts to abusive or hurtful language to get their points across they lose my respect. I am 'happy' for someone to say that trans women should never be permitted to use women's only spaces, but change the language to men in a dress and you've lost my respect and engagement.

1
 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> Cancellation is a new term which essentially means "people who say horrible things can expect to be criticised for it on social media" and yeah that's fine too imo. 

It goes a lot further than that. Go take a look at any remotely controversial social media post and count the number of replies trying to grass them into their employer "@bbc is this the kind of person you want representing you" etc. It comes from all quarters and all persuasions and you should definitely not be okay with it if you consider yourself any kind of liberal.

 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> The moment someone deliberately resorts to abusive or hurtful language to get their points across they lose my respect.

In my view the word terf is a misogynistic slur. I don’t particularly respect those who use it. Does it follow that I simply shouldn’t debate anything with them? How would that help matters? 

4
 Luke90 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> In my view the word terf is a misogynistic slur. I don’t particularly respect those who use it. Does it follow that I simply shouldn’t debate anything with them? How would that help matters? 

You're welcome to your view, and to choose not to debate whoever you like. But it's a bizarre interpretation of the word, especially considering the number of ardent feminists I've heard use it as a way of distinguishing themselves from those who don't respect trans identities.

Much as it's bizarre to accuse those arguing for trans rights of ignoring women's voices, as you've done on this thread, when there are loads of women's voices raised up in defence of trans rights.

2
 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

> Much as it's bizarre to accuse those arguing for trans rights of ignoring women's voices, as you've done on this thread, when there are loads of women's voices raised up in defence of trans rights.

I don't think that follows. To pick another highly polarising topic,  just because there are loads of Jewish people who support rights for Palestinians, it doesn't follow that everyone who supports Palestinian rights is necessarily immune to anti semitism.

There's a tendency with highly polarised and contentious subjects to characterise the opposing view with the most extreme and uncharitable interpretations available. The reality is that any complex subject contains a range of views, but that of course is difficult to convey with a meme, or in 140 characters or less or whatever the limit is these days.

 Andsomemore 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> Its totally reasonable to hold a legitimate fear/concern and doing so certainly does not make you transphobic. But deliberately using unkind language to describe trans women does suggest a level of transphobia.

An NGO I worked for (not in the UK) had a funding stream of support for trans sex workers. We supported hundreds and I personally got to know a dozen or more. The interesting thing there was, in a culture that had historically been far more open to trans people, the discussion about trans was positive and wildly different to the one had here. I strongly suspect because the terms of it were very different. Asking a trans woman if she is a girl or boy (or more normally asked to guess), the answer would almost always be either 'neither' or 'both'. The whole stigma about a binary man/woman didn't exist. Thus, nobody pretended to be something they weren't, nobody was required to accept something they didn't believe, and amidst all that there was no issue of misgendering.

Meanwhile, refusing to accept Bunny/Bunnyself or Ae/Aer is considered disrespectful. At what point is someone allowed to no longer play along with an individual's demands, especially if that person is being openly hostile towards you? For me it is a matter of self-respect to not be required to say something I don't believe to be true. If I demand to be referred to as His Royal Highness or, as my local canal boat hippie claims, Lord Shaman, must everyone really fall into line? Claimed pronouns should be no more binding than requirements to refer to someone as Professor/Colonel/Captain. 

> I am 'happy' for someone to say that trans women should never be permitted to use women's only spaces, but change the language to men in a dress and you've lost my respect and engagement.

Isn't that distinction real though? A man in a dress might be a cross-dresser. They may be an autogynephile. I'm not sure they automatically qualify as trans. If I'm to support 'trans-women are women', and so deserving of access to sex-segregated spaces other than that of their birth, I may draw the line at 'men-in-dresses' but be quite ok with a passing trans-woman.

8
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andsomemore:

> Isn't that distinction real though? A man in a dress might be a cross-dresser. They may be an autogynephile. I'm not sure they automatically qualify as trans. If I'm to support 'trans-women are women', and so deserving of access to sex-segregated spaces other than that of their birth, I may draw the line at 'men-in-dresses' but be quite ok with a passing trans-woman.

I'm taking about deliberately calling a person who you know identifies as trans by their birth gender, with the deliberate intention of shocking/offending.

 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

You will notice that at no point in this discussion have a labelled anyone as TERF, transphobic or any other offensive term. Yes respect works both ways.

My problem with hurling insults (besides simply being unkind) is that it undermines the message you're trying to get across. We have not always agreed on this thread, but but by not hurling insults you have engaged me to think about different view points and consider legitimate concerns about shared spaces, rather than me just assuming based on your use of language that everything you say is based on a hatred the trans community.

 Tom Valentine 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

Would you accept that some people might insist on addressing someone in terms of their natal sex as a matter of principle and that seeking to shock/ insult/offend is not always their motivation?

4
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

No. Like it or not deliberately addressing someone wrongly (bear in mind a trans person may not be legally recognised by their natal gender) is disrespectful and unnecessary. You may be acting on point of principle, but it is obvious that your actions will cause upset for the other person 

If you strongly object to using what to you are the 'wrong' pronouns I would suggest using neutral ones (they, them) instead.

2
 planetmarshall 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> No. Like it or not deliberately addressing someone wrongly (bear in mind a trans person may not be legally recognised by their natal gender) is disrespectful and unnecessary. You may be acting on point of principle, but it is obvious that your actions will cause upset for the other person 

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy that objection either. If someone has made it known that being called by the wrong pronouns causes them upset, then deliberately doing otherwise is just being a dick. 

Equally I would hope that if I were to accidentally misgender someone it would not be considered the end of the world once it is made clear that no offence was meant, and am happy to be corrected.

 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Equally I would hope that if I were to accidentally misgender someone it would not be considered the end of the world once it is made clear that no offence was meant, and am happy to be corrected.

I have a non binary friend who I frequently (but unintentionally) miss gender as female, and they have told me that they would prefer I correct myself and move on, rather than ignoring the mistake or making a huge deal out of apologising.

Mistakes happen and few people will take offence at a genuine mistake. Hey, wouldn't be the first time I've seen a cis person misgenderd, it's awkward, but obvious when it's a genuine mistake and no offence was intended.

 wercat 04 Jul 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

as the OP was about the ISS would it not be more apt to refer to delta-G relative to birth gender?

How much delta-V is needed to get back on Topic?

 RobAJones 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Would you accept that some people might insist on addressing someone in terms of their natal sex as a matter of principle

Is that another example of how age affects the discussion? 

>and that seeking to shock/ insult/offend is not always their motivation?

If a student insisted on addressing a members of staff differently to how they wanted, I'd be inclined to think that was the motivation, rather than a matter of principle. 

 Tom Valentine 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

I hope the people at Viz aren't reading your post   

1
 wintertree 04 Jul 2024
In reply to wercat:

> How much delta-V is needed to get back on Topic?

The gender of spacecraft mating adapters used to be a hot topic.  I believe androgynous mating systems were developed in part because both the USA and Russia wanted to have a male docking adapter not a female one precluding space docking between the nations.

Androgynous docking and berthing makes a lot more sense as then any pair of vehicles can get together on a whim.

 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Yeah, I'm not sure I buy that objection either. If someone has made it known that being called by the wrong pronouns causes them upset, then deliberately doing otherwise is just being a dick. 

Counter argument: you can choose your name, but your pronoun is a description of what sex you are, not what gender. (Do we need to think more clearly about that difference? We can do that!) And your sex is not your choice, it’s binary and immutable, and sometimes it matters. If a health service is trying to work out who needs a prostate or cervix examination then the body matters, not one’s (deeply held and genuine) feelings about it, or about the relationship between the body and one’s social role. What the body consists of is an objective fact, something we can ascertain. If you see the pronoun as a description of the body, then it becomes coercive for the owner of a male body (whatever they believe their gender to be, and remember, gender is not sex) to force others to pretend their body is of a different type. 

Now you could of course say, that’s fine but if you meet someone socially that’s a fundamentally different relationship than a medical one (or perhaps a sporting or incarceral one). But if you believe sex and not gender is what really differentiates people, then aren’t you asking someone who believes that to participate in a polite fiction?

7
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

This is just outright offensive. A pronoun is not a description of sex over gender. A pronoun is a term used to describe many things and that includes gender which is a matter of personal identity. You have decided that a personal pronoun is a descriptor for sex, but that is not correct.

Quite frankly Sean you're a transphobe. Simple as that.

9
 Tom Valentine 04 Jul 2024
In reply to RobAJones:

In your example I'd be the first to agree.

But if a student's parents insisted that I address them by their first name and I declined to do so, they might well be offended but I would stand by my right to address them by their  titles(s) and surname in an attempt to maintain whatever formality the situation required, the principle being that parents and teachers are not normally on first name terms and it's in no one's best interests for them to be so.

Put this down to age as well if that's your tack, but I just consider it sound practice.

1
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> This is just outright offensive. A pronoun is not a description of sex over gender. A pronoun is a term used to describe many things and that includes gender which is a matter of personal identity. You have decided that a personal pronoun is a descriptor for sex, but that is not correct.

Yet we use pronouns to describe animals, who do have a sex but don’t have a gender. Sure, you might say humans are more complex and the meanings of the words shift when applied to us, fair enough. But it would be perfectly rational to say “he (a man) has as his identity being trans (appearing as a woman)” and it would succinctly describe both sex and gender. Can you not see any situations in which sex would trump gender in terms of importance, or in which we would at least want to refer to the difference?
 

> Quite frankly Sean you're a transphobe. Simple as that.

Worth reading the article I posted above on whether this really is a phobia. I don’t think you will, which is a shame. Being smart but not expending at least a little intellectual energy on your enemies is a bit of a waste. 

4
 RobAJones 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> But if a student's parents insisted that I address them by their first name

That hasn't happened to me, the opposite has. Having taught the parent I address them by their first name. They requested I didn't 

>and I declined to do so

That didn't occur to me

>they might well be offended but I would stand by my right to address them by their  titles(s) and surname in an attempt to maintain whatever formality the situation required

A real rather than made up example. I have had experience of talking to  trans parents at parents evenings. I've always used the title they request. Fortunately all the other staff did as well, no one felt the need to do something, on principle, differently. Actually if a member of staff had expressed the need to follow this  principle I'm not sure how I would have handled it. 

>the principle being that parents and teachers are not normally on first name terms and it's in no one's best interests for them to be so.

Not usual, but I have been with many, it's just a different dynamic. I can see teaching your own kids possibly being problematic, teaching friends kids has pro and cons, but than tends to be more to do with nature of the student than how we address each other at parents evenings. 

 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> You have decided that a personal pronoun is a descriptor for sex, but that is not correct.

> Quite frankly Sean you're a transphobe. Simple as that.

Why can't you just argue that he is incorrect without calling him a transphobe?

1
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

Why shouldn't I call him what he is?

10
 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> Why shouldn't I call him what he is?

Because it adds nothing to the discussion and will only increase the polarisation which makes the whole debate so toxic.

Having said that, I think that this thread is generally one of the more constructive discussions I have seen on the subject.

I do agree with you that deliberate misgendering should not be acceptable.

Post edited at 19:59
1
 Andrew Wells 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

I actually do think that calling views as what they are is beneficial. I don't think it helps to dress up bigotry in some sort of "acceptable" terminology. Misgendering people is transphobic and Sean persists in defending it ergo...

6
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Because it adds nothing to the discussion and will only increase the polarisation which makes the whole debate so toxic.

> Having said that, I think that this thread is generally one of the more constructive discussions I have seen on the subject.

Thanks for the defence even though I’m sure we disagree. I think most posters on here are completely reasonable but also conceptually misguided. Having said that, when it comes to the actual outcomes that most people here would be happy with, I’d probably accept quite a lot of them, so perhaps the divide isn’t as big as one might think. But for some posters it seems even a basic challenge to their worldview is a bit of a struggle - ultimately there’s a big divide between the liberal-left and a more stringent and narrow strain of left-wing thought and activity. 

3
 Luke90 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Worth reading the article I posted above on whether this really is a phobia.

Is the thrust of the argument much different from the quotes you posted further up the thread trying to justify a complete distinction between opposition to trans rights and gay rights? Because I didn't find that particularly convincing, so wouldn't really bother with a longer form of a similar argument. But might try it in a bored moment if you think it's taking a different tack.

1
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

> Is the thrust of the argument much different from the quotes you posted further up the thread trying to justify a complete distinction between opposition to trans rights and gay rights? Because I didn't find that particularly convincing, so wouldn't really bother with a longer form of a similar argument. But might try it in a bored moment if you think it's taking a different tack.

Okay, tell us why it didn’t convince you. Analyse it and show me (and everyone reading) where it falls down. Explain why gender critical thought is very similar to anti-gay thought (despite the fact that many people active in the former are strongly opposed to the later).

4
In reply to seankenny:

> If a health service is trying to work out who needs a prostate or cervix examination…

Then the clinical team would look at their medical records which record their sex and will also typically include a flag highlighting if someone doesn’t identify as that sex. They don’t blindly rely on the pronouns that someone, who the clinicians may or may not have ever met at that point, might introduce themselves by.

> If you see the pronoun as a description of the body

And if you see the pronoun as a reference to the whole person? A pronoun is just a reference to a noun after all. “He” would typically be replacing “Stuart” if someone were talking about me, and in the vast majority of situations when someone talks about “Stuart” they aren’t exclusively wanting to discuss what sex organs I had at birth.

1
In reply to wercat:

> as the OP was about the ISS would it not be more apt to refer to delta-G relative to birth gender?

> How much delta-V is needed to get back on Topic?

I have no idea what your on about (delta-G, delta-V??). Although I do feel a bit proud that people have been able to open up about some sensitive topics even if it's got nought to do with the OP.

 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> Then the clinical team would look at their medical records which record their sex and will also typically include a flag highlighting if someone doesn’t identify as that sex. They don’t blindly rely on the pronouns that someone, who the clinicians may or may not have ever met at that point, might introduce themselves by.

So, we’ve found a situation where sex matters. There are others. So surely we should want language (or more accurate, access to language being as we already have the language) to describe people in terms of their sex, not their gender. 

> And if you see the pronoun as a reference to the whole person? A pronoun is just a reference to a noun after all. “He” would typically be replacing “Stuart” if someone were talking about me, and in the vast majority of situations when someone talks about “Stuart” they aren’t exclusively wanting to discuss what sex organs I had at birth.

Yes, but part of the pronoun’s function in English has been to alert us to the person’s sex. However now some parts of society want to use pronouns to alert us to someone’s gender. Again, sex and gender refer to two different things, right? So saying that there should be an important aspect of someone (their sex) which we have a social taboo against describing, strikes me as regressive and in fact a limitation on language. 

3
 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> So saying that there should be an important aspect of someone (their sex) which we have a social taboo against describing, strikes me as regressive and in fact a limitation on language. 

So we have a choice as a society whether to use pronouns which refer to sex or which prefer to gender. In the absence of any other compelling argument one way or the other, I would have thought it makes sense to make the choice which doesn't cause offense to some people. 

1
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So we have a choice as a society whether to use pronouns which refer to sex or which prefer to gender. In the absence of any other compelling argument one way or the other, I would have thought it makes sense to make the choice which doesn't cause offense to some people. 

So when dealing with transwomen who have committed sexual crimes (and there have been some), should we offend:

the perpetrator, who doesn’t want to be misgendered?

or the victim (or indeed other victims of the same crime) who believe that rape is a crime committed by men against women? 

4
In reply to seankenny:

> So, we’ve found a situation where sex matters. There are others. So surely we should want language (or more accurate, access to language being as we already have the language) to describe people in terms of their sex, not their gender. 

Mm hm. You’ve missed the bit where the medical record is quite capable of describing your sex as male/female. What pronouns someone wants to use doesn’t present any issue there, nor are they what gets recorded under the heading “sex”. 

> Yes, but part of the pronoun’s function in English has been to alert us to the person’s sex. 

Well, certainly they alert us to how we might expect the person to look. It’s a fairly small subset of situations where I would actually need to know someone’s biological sex. In the majority of situations, if I’m expecting someone who presents as a man then I’d reckon the pronoun “he” probably gives me more pragmatically useful information about who I’m looking for than “she” would. 

> So saying that there should be an important aspect of someone (their sex) which we have a social taboo against describing, strikes me as regressive and in fact a limitation on language. 

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here object to describing sex in those situations where it is important to know it. 

Post edited at 21:29
 Niall_H 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> your pronoun is a description of what sex you are, not what gender

Only in your mind!  For the rest of us, it can be used for either, and usually gender (as that's easier to determine in day-to-day life).  An indicator of this is that pronouns can be used for non living things (such as ships).

Also, medical professionals tend not to rely on pronouns for locating body parts

1
 Neil Williams 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed.  Or basic politeness is to use the form of address the person you're addressing prefers.

Mistakes can be understood if an apology is forthcoming when corrected.  Wilfully doing it just says everything about the person doing so.

Medical things can be done correctly by asking an appropriate question where it is relevant to do so, e.g. "as what sex where you born?".  They are not in any way relevant to forms of address.

Post edited at 21:27
 Neil Williams 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

This is a strawman.  A tiny proportion of trans women have committed sexual offences.

In this context I would use they/them or simply their name.  Its a sensible default in contexts where there may be awkwardness.

Should I wish to discredit them, "rapist" is a pretty good way to do so, it being one of the worst of all crimes.

Post edited at 21:30
1
 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> or the victim (or indeed other victims of the same crime) who believe that rape is a crime committed by men against women? 

Rape can be committed by anyone against anyone. 

1
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

You are dragging up the very worst minority of society. How we describe a sex offender has no bearing on how we treat and describe law abiding citizens who just want to get on with their lives. No doubt just as some cis women can commit sex offences so too could a genuinely trans woman.

You either describe them as a man masquerading as a trans woman, or as a trans woman - which is correct would depend on if you/society believed that their assuming of a female persona was to try and escape justice, or a genuine desire to be a woman - either way the words sex offender are the important bit, not their gender.

Most trans women, just like most cis men are not violent sexual predators, speaking to and of them using respectful language costs you nothing, so why is it such an afront to be asked to do so?

I am happy to concede many of your points regarding shared spaces and safety, but on language I am completely baffled by the lack of respect and compassion that you (and others on here) are showing.

Post edited at 21:42
1
In reply to Neil Williams:

> This is a strawman.  A tiny proportion of trans women have committed sexual offences.

On the plus side, any offence sean might cause by misgendering trans people he meets in day-to-day life will pale into insignificance compared to the offence caused when he explains “I’ve decided how to treat you based on how I would treat a convicted sex offender”. 

Post edited at 21:44
 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Rape can be committed by anyone against anyone. 

According to the Met: “The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.”

So no, it can’t be committed by a female, as they don’t have a penis. 

3
 Neil Williams 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Stuart Williams:

And to go back to the homophobia comparison, this is exactly what people used to do with regard to gay men.

 seankenny 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> You are dragging up the very worst minority of society. How we describe a sex offender has no bearing on how we treat and describe law abiding citizens who just want to get on with their lives. 


It’s the first stage in an argument not the whole argument. In my view many people would recoil from describing a rapist as female. This means there are at least some imaginable circumstances in which misgendering is acceptable, rather than taboo. There is a point at which many people would prioritise the objective fact of biological sex over the subjective, internal decision about gender presentation. The next stage of the argument is to ask: are there other situations, perhaps similar or analogous, or perhaps not, in which misgendering may be acceptable or important? 

> No doubt just as some cis women can commit sex offences so too could a genuinely trans woman. You either describe them as a man masquerading as a trans woman, or as a trans woman - which is correct would depend on if you/society believed that their assuming of a female persona was to try and escape justice, or a genuine desire to be a woman - either way the words sex offender are the important bit, not their gender.

Well this is where we part ways on whether we can split transwomen into genuine vs masqueraders. I believe that with the transgender ideology theory of gender this is impossible. I will explain why later. 

> Most trans women, just like most cis men are not violent sexual predators,

Absolutely agree. 

> speaking to and of them using respectful language costs you nothing, so why is it such an afront to be asked to do so?

I am trying to explain why! Unfortunately there are now more important things to think about, so I will return to this later. 

> I am happy to concede many of your points regarding shared spaces and safety, but on language I am completely baffled by the lack of respect and compassion that you (and others on here) are showing.

Have a gander at this:

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/rightside-norms-accuracy-norms-and?utm_m...

4
 Robert Durran 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> According to the Met: “The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.”

> So no, it can’t be committed by a female, as they don’t have a penis. 

Ok, fair enough. So rape could be committed by some transgender women.

1
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

And presumably also by some trans men - assuming that a phalloplasty counts as a penis.

In reply to seankenny:

> Have a gander at this:

I’m struggling to see the relevance of that to the question of whether a default position of knowingly talking to someone in a way that will likely upset them is okay.

All that article seems to do in the context of this thread and the comment you were replying to is to position yourself as being right and anyone that disagrees with you as virtue signalling, and logically that includes trans people themselves. Above you were generous enough to suggest that trans people deeply and genuinely believe themselves to be the gender they identify as, even if you don’t think that is a valid belief. Offering this article up to explain your position on preferred pronouns appears to be saying that in fact you think that when trans people ask to be referred to by certain pronouns, or advocate for themselves in other ways, they are saying things they don’t believe just to improve their social standing. Is that what you were hoping to convey?

Post edited at 22:37
1
 Jenny C 04 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> It’s the first stage in an argument not the whole argument. 

The first stage of the argument is already completed. The law recognises trans identities and like it or not we need to do so too.

Second stage is to clarify rights for the majority of trans people, regarding access to basic essentials like toilets.

Third (and final?) stage is to try and decide how to accommodate the situation in prisons etc. I hope you agree that we need to provide safe, dignified accommodation for all, including trans men and women - how this is best implemented is something I'm bored of arguing over 

 wercat 04 Jul 2024
In reply to broken spectre:

delta-G = change in Gender relative to initial Gender

 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> Or it’s an accurate portrayal of reality as JKR sees it, but it’s much easier for her detractors to claim bad faith rather than explain why gender is more important than sex. It’s also a boon for progressive men who want to put a clever, successful woman down whilst proudly portraying their progressiveness. 

I sometimes think it doesn't say a lot which is good about where society is currently at, that nothing has come up in the discourse about her abusive experiences at the hands of past male partner(s), which could be plausibly at the root of her point of view (it'd be at the root of mine, if I thought the same in her shoes), but she's been cancelled, as seems to happen now.

I'll call trans people by their transitioned to pronoun and things BTW, and see brains as being biological, and identity as stemming from there, which strikes me as making their transitioned to genders valid, I'm just not sure about where society seems to be at.

Post edited at 00:19
1
 Andrew Wells 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Timmd:

For me I don't say it because to use the abuse she suffered as an argument tactic seems crass and ghoulish. I'm aware she suffered it and it is horrible; it's a step too far for me to say "Rowling is a bigot because of her traumatic experiences which have led her to fundamentally distrust men and be unable to divorce that from trans women." She's a bigot, psychoanalysis as to why is not really appropriate imo. Others may disagree. 

4
 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Andrew Wells:

I didn't categorically say that's at the root. An Indian friend's older relative hates Muslims following what she experienced during the partition, it's common enough for trauma to shape people. Each to their own point of view in the end.

Post edited at 08:43
 wercat 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Timmd:

My grandparents often said to me, back in the 60s, "The only good German is a dead German".  I thought them silly but of course I hadn't lived through 2 world wars and lost 2 brothers to the Germans and had another one horribly wounded.  Or picked through bombed houses and buildings to rescue victims and recover bodies as a fireman like my grandad.

Didn't stop me marrying a German!

Post edited at 08:53
 deepsoup 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> Mm hm. You’ve missed the bit where the medical record is quite capable of describing your sex as male/female.

Well, yes.  If it can keep track of whether you have a penicillin allergy you would certainly hope it can do that.  And when clinicians are dealing with perfectly lucid adults, I think they can gather a lot of that sort of information by simply asking ffs.

> It’s a fairly small subset of situations where I would actually need to know someone’s biological sex.

Quite so - I think the thing that's most extraordinary about seankenny's thesis about pronouns is the sheer sense of entitlement that he should even have the right to know what's in everybody's pants.

If you're a doctor treating someone for a medical condition, fair enough, it's a 'need to know'.  If you're being invited to become sexually intimate with someone, also fair enough.  Otherwise it's absolutely none of your business!

1
 deepsoup 05 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

> So when dealing with transwomen who have committed sexual crimes (and there have been some), should we offend:

First of all, what is this "transwomen" thing?  I noticed Tom Valentine doing that upthread and now you've picked it up as well.  Is it that you can't bring yourself to say "trans women", so you're just holding your nose and rushing through it? 

I'm not fully up on my 'woke' terminology (though I am most definitely with Kathy Burke), but I believe this is what's called a "microaggression" isn't it?

> the perpetrator, who doesn’t want to be misgendered?

> or the victim (or indeed other victims of the same crime) who believe that rape is a crime committed by men against women? 

Others have already pointed out how ridiculous it is to seek out the most bizarre and unusual 'edge' cases to try to justify treating everybody else in society a certain way.  As if the toilets in a motorway service station are exactly the same situation as a high-security prison.  I certainly wouldn't like someone deciding how I should be addressed and generally spoken to based on the best way to deal with some heinous criminal, and I don't think you would either.

But addressing this hypothetical 'edge' case specifically:

Alleged perpetrator, if you're talking about a trial here - innocent until proven guilty and all that.  And how do you know what the victim is thinking in your hypothetical case?  You don't, you're just projecting your own assumptions onto them. 

Clearly this is a judgement call.  And guess what - in your extreme hypothetical example there is somebody running the show who's actual job it is to make that judgement call, and that person is a judge!

3
 Tom Valentine 05 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

My use of "transwomen"  was just me not being aware that it is two separate words ( if indeed it is). You can call it a micro aggression for all I care but when Jenny C wrote " miss gender" I made fun of what I also took to be a mistake and didn't look for aggression or insult in it.

Is transphobe two words as well? If not, why not?

Edit: I genuinely didn't know I'd used a dogwhistle term favoured by terfs and my only excuse can be that, like you, I'm not fully up on my woke terminolgy.

Post edited at 09:42
 Jenny C 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yes that was a mistake, and I hadn't even realised. (Your random magazine reference did confuse me though)

This is a new language to most of us so mistakes will happen, just gently educate and learn to hopefully create kinder more tolerant people.

Post edited at 09:35
 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to wercat:

I suddenly thought, in the way of online discussions where things which go unsaid aren't credited, I'm not suggesting that everybody responds in a negative or prejudiced way to traumatic things, or that it's right or reasonable, more that it's a human tendency (depending on a person's emotional capacity to process what has happened etc).

Post edited at 09:49
 Tom Valentine 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

It was obviously just a typo on your part and thank you for not being offended at my gentle dig at your error.

I still think that Miss Gender could be an interesting and entertaining new character in Viz but knowing their take on things it would more than likely ruffle a few feathers on here, one way or the other.

 deepsoup 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> My use of "transwomen"  was just me not being aware that it is two separate words ( if indeed it is).

Yes it is; an adjective followed by a noun.  I didn't pick up on it when you were using it precisely because I wasn't sure whether or not it was just an honest mistake.  But I don't think anything about seankenny's posts on this thread is particularly honest.  (Though he does seem to have become slightly more so as it's gone on.)

> Is transphobe two words as well? If not, why not?

Because "-phobe" is a suffix, not a noun.  You can be a transphobe, homophobe, xenophobe or an arachnophobe but you can't just be a phobe.

Post edited at 09:51
1
 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Edit: I genuinely didn't know I'd used a dogwhistle term favoured by terfs and my only excuse can be that, like you, I'm not fully up on my woke terminolgy.

There's women who have transitioned who don't mind being seen as/calling themselves trans women, to be fair. 

Post edited at 11:06
 Luke90 05 Jul 2024
In reply to seankenny:

That's a pretty demanding response to a post where I just expressed some willingness to read your article if you thought it had significantly different information to what you've already posted on the thread. 

I've actually been intending to respond to your quotes up-thread on the strong distinction you see between opposition to gay rights and trans rights, but that takes time and I didn't have that last night.

The argument seems to boil down to: 

  • Opposition to gay rights had no genuinely solid arguments that those rights would cause meaningful harms, it was basically founded on moral disgust
  • Campaigners against trans rights, by contrast, have genuine and justifiable concerns about actual and potential harms from greater trans rights
  • Also, gay rights campaigners weren't seeking to redefine anything whereas trans rights campaigners seek to fundamentally redefine gender

Before I go any further, do you agree with that as a reasonable summary of the argument you wanted to present? I don't want to debate something from a starting point that you'll think is a straw man or a corruption of your view.

Because although I obviously don't agree with the distinction you make between them, I do think it's a comparison that probably sheds light on where people are coming from on this thread.

1
 Neil Williams 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

I'm not sure this:

"Opposition to gay rights had no genuinely solid arguments that those rights would cause meaningful harms, it was basically founded on moral disgust"

... is quite 100% true, which caused an issue with that article that was linked to.

It is clear that a gay man in a changing room of straight men *could* pose a risk to the straight men if that gay man is a rapist.  The risk is probably lesser than that posed by a theoretical rapist trans woman poses to women, though, because there's less of a physical "balance of power" issue, but it's nonzero (and most of the arguments on here seem to be centred around the idea that any risk to women, however small, isn't acceptable, and that risk must be mitigated regardless of the impact of that mitigation on trans women).

But we accept that tiny, somewhat theoretical risk, because it would be pretty outrageously discriminatory if we didn't - it's hard to imagine separate gay/straight changing rooms being needed too!  (It's notable that separate, fully self-contained individual changing/toilet facilities also mitigate that tiny risk, though!)

So what it really seems to come down to is that you can't easily tell a man in a changing room is gay, but you can in a lot of cases tell a trans woman from a cis woman by looking at them*.  Which is remarkably, in *that* context, like the issue is actually moral disgust there too!

* Sometimes.  I have heard of odd cases of cis women getting abuse for going into female changing rooms because someone thought they were a man, because they were a masculine looking woman, e.g. small breasts and short hair - so this really can go into the land of the utterly absurd if we let it!

Post edited at 12:31
1
 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

I think the context of the moral disgust needs considering too, though, in that religious people can like to quote whichever book towards saying it's immoral, which is relevant given how religious the UK and other societies have been, and how far religion can shape a society's norms. It's a favourite cover for anybody who has a problem with it anyway, to use religion as cause to dislike it, when it often turns out to be because they've leanings in that direction which they're not accepting of. 

Which just leaves 'It isn't natural', but that's disproven by what happens in other animal species, but then some pop up and ask 'Surely humans aren't as base and urge driven as animals?'. 

Post edited at 13:27
1
 Robert Durran 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Timmd:

> I think the context of the moral disgust needs considering too........

I think moral disgust is, for the majority, far too strong a word. As far as I have heard, most people have no issue at all with trans people existing and very much take at least a "live and let live" attitude even if they find the idea of being trans a bit odd and hard to fathom. There are clearly a lot of women who feel uneasy at the idea of sharing toilets and changing rooms with trans women and the ones I know are decent, liberal people. To label then as transphobic is, I think, unnecessarily insulting. It is perfectly understandable that they might be at the very least wary of having people with penises in these places where traditionally there have not been; I don't think it is moral disgust, but just fear of change which, literally, makes them feel out of their comfort zone. To expect them to simply be told they are wrong or worse is not going to work. Change in attitudes, as towards gay people, may very well come, but might take a generation, not through condemnation but through gradual persuasion and acceptance that trans women do not pose a statistically meaningful risk and through simply getting used to their existence. Importantly, I think the process can only be made smoother by removing the toxicity on both sides from the discussion.

As for J K Rowling, it seems to me she started off with, like many decent women, understandable concerns, but, in her prominent position, became the target for the worst sort of inexcusable hate and, backed in to a corner, has fought back saying some very regrettable things which have only inflamed things further. And so on. Just a sad mess.

I strongly recommend the podcast series "The witch Trials of J K Rowling". Much food for thought, not just on Rowling but on trolling and cancel culture in general: https://open.spotify.com/show/2K186zrvRgeE2w0wQjbaw7

1
 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Here you go, a list of homophobic preachers who have turned out to be having sex with men.

https://medium.com/backyard-theology/from-pulpit-to-grindr-the-secret-doubl...

I haven't check whether it's work safe, the mention of grindr may raise some IT flags etc.

 Neil Williams 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Timmd:

It's very, very common for non-out gay people to be outwardly homophobic in order to camouflage their own sexuality.

Sad really.  Probably comes with very poor self esteem

 Timmd 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, it's down to what is absorbed without registering it from society, there can be some psychological defragging involved towards being at peace.

 seankenny 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Luke90:

> That's a pretty demanding response to a post where I just expressed some willingness to read your article if you thought it had significantly different information to what you've already posted on the thread. 

> I've actually been intending to respond to your quotes up-thread on the strong distinction you see between opposition to gay rights and trans rights, but that takes time and I didn't have that last night.

> The argument seems to boil down to: 

> Opposition to gay rights had no genuinely solid arguments that those rights would cause meaningful harms, it was basically founded on moral disgust

> Campaigners against trans rights, by contrast, have genuine and justifiable concerns about actual and potential harms from greater trans rights

> Also, gay rights campaigners weren't seeking to redefine anything whereas trans rights campaigners seek to fundamentally redefine gender

> Before I go any further, do you agree with that as a reasonable summary of the argument you wanted to present? I don't want to debate something from a starting point that you'll think is a straw man or a corruption of your view.

> Because although I obviously don't agree with the distinction you make between them, I do think it's a comparison that probably sheds light on where people are coming from on this thread.

Almost!

Also, gay rights campaigners weren't seeking to redefine anything whereas trans rights campaigners seek to fundamentally redefine the relationship between sex and gender, and to generally disregard the importance of the former.

I have been meaning to explain where I think the difference sits, but elections and wicked sun burn (!) have kind of stymied my efforts...

2
 seankenny 05 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Others have already pointed out how ridiculous it is to seek out the most bizarre and unusual 'edge' cases to try to justify treating everybody else in society a certain way. 

The point of this line of questioning is to see if you believe there are any circumstances in which sex is more important than gender. My point is that there are more cases than you believe, but I'm interested to see if you believe there are any at all.

3
 Michael Hood 05 Jul 2024
In reply to deepsoup:

> Quite so - I think the thing that's most extraordinary about seankenny's thesis about pronouns is the sheer sense of entitlement that he should even have the right to know what's in everybody's pants.

Don't forget that historically, pronouns were an indicator of sex and in some societies they still are. In the west (at least, maybe elsewhere for all I know) we are making the transition to pronouns being an indicator of gender, but that transition isn't complete although it's more advanced with younger people.

I think that one of the reasons older people aren't "on-board" is that 1) they're confused (I know I am) & 2) they mostly don't have any contacts (that they know about) with trans people so it doesn't directly or indirectly affect them.

1
 deepsoup 05 Jul 2024
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Don't forget that historically, pronouns were an indicator of sex and in some societies they still are.

Er..  and you're using the word "sex" there the same way that seankenny is? 
(ie: meaning the sex that someone was assigned at birth, and not necessarily how they present themselves to the world now.)

Assuming so, I don't really see the relevance to this to my comment that you're replying to, nor other comments about how deliberately referring to a trans woman as "he" despite their wishes is a dick move, petty and offensive.

But I am curious, this is news to me, can you perhaps provide some examples of what you're on about?  When you say historically, what period are you talking about?  When you say 'in some societies' - which societies, where?

1
 wercat 06 Jul 2024
In reply to Timmd:

That old saying about walking a mile in another man's shoes rings true.  If you haven't experienced the times that people have lived through you don't know how you'd be affected

1
 Jenny C 06 Jul 2024
In reply to Robert Durran:

>  ... Change in attitudes, as towards gay people, may very well come, but might take a generation, not through condemnation but through gradual persuasion and acceptance ......

1967 homosexually was legalised - my parents grew up in a world where it was illegal, hardly surprising then their generation has an ingrained level of homophobia. 

1988-2003 (2000 in Scotland) prohibited the promotion of homosexually in schools - many of us posting on here besides living with our parents prejudices had no access to positive (or rather any) information on homosexually through the education system. Plus for my age there was also the fear and lack of understanding of AIDS which at the time was a disease of gay men.

2004 the gender recognition act permitted people with gender disphoria to change their legal gender. (Yes only the year after section 28 was removed)

Just 20 years on and we have a whole generation of parents (like myself) who couldn't even ask teachers about homosexually, seeing their own kids being actively taught about different family units and acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights.

Hopefully as you say most of us have over those years learned to accept homosexually, not just as something that happens but as something that's healthy and normal. So yes just as or kids are growing up with societies acceptance of homosexually they hopefully will also have a much greater compassion and understanding towards trans rights/needs.

As I have said countless times in this thread, yes there are times where trans people (especially women) will be treated differently. But they deserve respect and when it comes to bathrooms I don't believe that there is any justification to refuse access to someone who has legally changed their gender (those in the early stages of transition and access to more private spaces I agree is complicated, but let's at least try to agree on the basics).

Post edited at 18:09
 abcdefg 06 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> But they [trans people] deserve respect and when it comes to bathrooms I don't believe that there is any justification to refuse access to someone who has legally changed their gender ...

I don't think anyone here has suggested the contrary, have they?

2
 Jenny C 06 Jul 2024
In reply to abcdefg:

That was certainly the impression I got. Several people on here have been very outspoken about the risks to the safety of cis women, from permitting anyone born male to access female only spaces. 

Post edited at 19:36
 abcdefg 06 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> That was certainly the impression I got. Several people on here have been very outspoken about the risks to the safety of cis women, from permitting anyone born male to access female only spaces. 

The female only spaces generally referred to in this context are things like women's refuges, rape crisis centres, etc.

1
 deepsoup 06 Jul 2024
In reply to abcdefg:

No, there are lots of comments above making it perfectly clear that they're talking about toilets in public places, changing rooms etc.

 Robert Durran 07 Jul 2024
In reply to Jenny C:

> That was certainly the impression I got. Several people on here have been very outspoken about the risks to the safety of cis women, from permitting anyone born male to access female only spaces. 

Definitely the impression I got too.

Perhaps also worth noting that it is possible to legally change your gender without gender affirmation surgery if you have a gender dysphoria diagnosis.


New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...