Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sex is immutable, the highest court agrees. Now we just need to stop adjusting what is normal to accommodate a tiny tiny fraction of the population. We do hope anybody who was discriminated against for their common sense beliefs takes folk to court for some serious compo too. Sadly it'll be tax payers paying out for it though. That leads to another issue, rewarding of failure in government and not sacking incompetent beaurocrats." Trans make up such a "tiny tiny fraction of the population" yet people are bothered by their very existence  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. " I'm not following your logic and you are not the only one to have started talking of groups of women could now be a target. I need this spelling out for me, because I can't for the life of me join the dots on all this from the ruling yesterday. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. " Crikey, that's some leap | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. I'm not following your logic and you are not the only one to have started talking of groups of women could now be a target. I need this spelling out for me, because I can't for the life of me join the dots on all this from the ruling yesterday. " Because it was never about women's rights. It's about punching down. It's trans people first, then gender non-conforming, then gay/lesbian, etc. For example, you'll see that recently JK Rowling has attackef asexual people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. Crikey, that's some leap " Not really, there is evidence of this happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. Crikey, that's some leap Not really, there is evidence of this happening." I'm just not buying that  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. " Pushing or forcing tolerance only breeds intolerance, 30 40 years ugly people were ugly, butch women would knock you out if you messed about, and tomboys were the best mates a lad could have. How things have changed.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not following your logic and you are not the only one to have started talking of groups of women could now be a target. I need this spelling out for me, because I can't for the life of me join the dots on all this from the ruling yesterday." The ruling in itself is a very narrow technical thing, although it's 87 pages long and the summary is over three pages of dense text. I've only skimmed over it so can't give a definite take but in very rough term it rules that trans people are to be treated as having the sex that a medic judged them to have at birth and that gender recognition certificates under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 don't apply to the terms of Equality Act 2010. Amongst other things this effectively means that trans people no longer have access to spaces designated for those other than their sex at birth. The consequences of this are still trying to be worked out by lots of organisations as it goes against prevailing legal opinion going back to the GRA 2004. It's difficult to predict exactly what changes will have to be made. But many members of the public appear to see this as meaning that trans women in particular are no longer able to access women only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. Following on from this one can imagine that anyone who doesn't present as feminine, even though they are technically classed as women, will be viewed with suspicion in women only spaces. In the past there was legal ambiguity about this but the ruling gives people more confidence to express their doubts about anyone who they think might not be a woman. This will especially apply to butch lesbians because they purposefully don't conform to stereotypes about how a woman ought to look. In schools, tomboys might be known to be technically female but could still be subject to bullying because as with butch lesbians they don't fit into a sterotypical feminine role which the highest court in the land appears to be declaring (even if this isn't what the court actually said). I could be wrong about all of this, I hope so, but I'm afraid I'm not optimistic given the reaction of some people to this ruling already. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's interesting how the same people who attack Trump for undermining the rule of law in the US are doing all they can to discredit an independent judicial decision in the UK, not least with hysterical scare mongering." A very silly comparison. The President of the country flouting the law and individual citizens criticising a legal decision are not remotely the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's interesting how the same people who attack Trump for undermining the rule of law in the US are doing all they can to discredit an independent judicial decision in the UK, not least with hysterical scare mongering. A very silly comparison. The President of the country flouting the law and individual citizens criticising a legal decision are not remotely the same." Not criticising, attempting to discredit and undermine the legal process with unfounded allegations and fake news. Straight from the MAGA playbook. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not criticising, attempting to discredit and undermine the legal process with unfounded allegations and fake news. Straight from the MAGA playbook." If you are referring to my recent post then please point out the unfounded allegations and fake news in detail. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not criticising, attempting to discredit and undermine the legal process with unfounded allegations and fake news. Straight from the MAGA playbook. If you are referring to my recent post then please point out the unfounded allegations and fake news in detail." Your whole post was a series of evidence free negative speculation beginning with the assertion that those who agreed with the SC decision, and presumably the SC judges, didn't give a damn about trans people. Nothing to do with the legal arguments, just scare mongering. Absolutely Trump tactics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your whole post was a series of evidence free negative speculation beginning with the assertion that those who agreed with the SC decision, and presumably the SC judges, didn't give a damn about trans people. Nothing to do with the legal arguments, just scare mongering. Absolutely Trump tactics." You must be referring to an earlier post where I wrote... "Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences?" This wasn't an assertion. If you can be bothered then please go through my response to the joining the dots question by another poster and point out in detail the unfounded allegations and the fake news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your whole post was a series of evidence free negative speculation beginning with the assertion that those who agreed with the SC decision, and presumably the SC judges, didn't give a damn about trans people. Nothing to do with the legal arguments, just scare mongering. Absolutely Trump tactics. You must be referring to an earlier post where I wrote... "Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences?" This wasn't an assertion. If you can be bothered then please go through my response to the joining the dots question by another poster and point out in detail the unfounded allegations and the fake news. " You have a rather entitled belief that's its incumbent upon me to treat your posts as great works of critical thinking that require detailed responses! They're not; they don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if you don't give a damn about the impact on trans people, what about possible unintended consequences? Women who aren't particularly feminine looking getting hateful glances when they go to the loo. Butch lesbians being shunned. Tomboys being bullied at school. Society in general and the internet in particular becoming even more intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into a stereotypical role. I'm not following your logic and you are not the only one to have started talking of groups of women could now be a target. I need this spelling out for me, because I can't for the life of me join the dots on all this from the ruling yesterday. Because it was never about women's rights. It's about punching down. It's trans people first, then gender non-conforming, then gay/lesbian, etc. For example, you'll see that recently JK Rowling has attackef asexual people. " What does punching down mean? Why was it not about women's rights? I admit to only having read one article on the ruling and I'm only concerned about women's safe spaces being upheld for "people with vaginas". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You have a rather entitled belief that's its incumbent upon me to treat your posts as great works of critical thinking that require detailed responses! They're not; they don't." I didn't expect you to back up your assertions, which is why I used the phrase "if you can be bothered". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A woman defined 2025, glad we got that sorted, now they should define a man. " Can I go first? 👋🏾 Is the answer a man is a person that is born with a penis and also has a prostate gland? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Trans make up such a "tiny tiny fraction of the population" yet people are bothered by their very existence "Maybe because the trans community is like a very squeaky wheel: impossible to ignore and difficult to silence. I have no problem with the wheel itself, it's the squeak that is bothering | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A woman defined 2025, glad we got that sorted, now they should define a man. " My guess, after the ruling would be, man means biological man and his sex is biological sex, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A woman defined 2025, glad we got that sorted, now they should define a man. " Leaves the toilet seat up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess in the here and now, we have to deal with the implications of the ruling. . But I can't but help think that 100,200,300 or more years from now, changing your gender will be much easier and more comprehensive. All-encompassing possibly. . I remember when I was 13, and left alone at my cousin's house, reading a short-story book in her library. She was in to a lot of sci--fi. I never forgot one story and it was about a group of school children in a lesson. I forget their ages. They were in a gym and there was boxes all over the place. The teacher said "In the boxes are parts. Human parts. And you can rummage around the boxes and if you find a part you like, you can swap it out. Is there are part of you you do not like ? Change it. Be whatever you want to be.". And the children all ran excitedly to the boxes and some changed parts. Some didn't as they were happy with who they were. Others dived in and had a whale of time. At the end, everyone appeared to be happy. One boy was crying because he chose poorly and didn't like his part. But the teacher said "That's not a problem. Nothing is permanent. Choose again or have your original part back if you like.". . That story stuck with me, to this day. And I though back then as I do now, "That's the world I want to live in. The freedom to change what you like and no one cares"." Here's the thing though, people can't just chop and change their bits at will | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. " I do think the ruling could have gone further to protect true transwomen. Or perhaps that comes next with regards to reviewing the Equality Act 2010. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess in the here and now, we have to deal with the implications of the ruling. . But I can't but help think that 100,200,300 or more years from now, changing your gender will be much easier and more comprehensive. All-encompassing possibly. . I remember when I was 13, and left alone at my cousin's house, reading a short-story book in her library. She was in to a lot of sci--fi. I never forgot one story and it was about a group of school children in a lesson. I forget their ages. They were in a gym and there was boxes all over the place. The teacher said "In the boxes are parts. Human parts. And you can rummage around the boxes and if you find a part you like, you can swap it out. Is there are part of you you do not like ? Change it. Be whatever you want to be.". And the children all ran excitedly to the boxes and some changed parts. Some didn't as they were happy with who they were. Others dived in and had a whale of time. At the end, everyone appeared to be happy. One boy was crying because he chose poorly and didn't like his part. But the teacher said "That's not a problem. Nothing is permanent. Choose again or have your original part back if you like.". . That story stuck with me, to this day. And I though back then as I do now, "That's the world I want to live in. The freedom to change what you like and no one cares"." Fortunately or unfortunately it’s not possible to change your sex. That’s just biological reality. It’s like crying over why I can’t become a unicorn or a panda. Five year olds do it and then for the most part they grow up. There are about 9,500 people in the UK with Gender Recognition Certificates. Out of a country of what 65 million odd? This whole debate is just another colossal waste of resources that’s typical of a Western society that’s lost its focus and moral compass. There’s a tiny number of people with a genuine issue. We can either inconvenience them or inconvenience half of society. That’s not to say those with genuine issues shouldn’t be treated with respect and reasonable adjustments made for them. But sometimes it’s just necessary to stop being cowards and say “no” to people, an ability Western society has lost. There’s also a larger number of mainly younger people who also have problems, who have been wrongly treated for gender dysphoria by various “charities” and “medical professionals” with an agenda. Instead of treating them for their actual problems (mental health, autism, struggling with being gay, social contagion, just being a bit weird and not fitting in) they’ve been victims of medical negligence and used by people with an agenda and had the most awful medical experiments carried out on them that wouldn’t have been out of place in a Nazi concentration camp. Then there is a much larger group of people for whom this is just another wedge issue to be used to create division and undermine our society in pursuit of their year zero Marxist utopia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. " I have been to a number of events where the designated female toilets were inadequate in quantity thus resulting in many females resorting to use the male toilets instead. This wasn't because they wanted to make some statement about gender, they were just desperate for a pee. If a man wants to lurk in female toilets what difference does it make if they are trans or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. " Based  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess in the here and now, we have to deal with the implications of the ruling. . But I can't but help think that 100,200,300 or more years from now, changing your gender will be much easier and more comprehensive. All-encompassing possibly. . I remember when I was 13, and left alone at my cousin's house, reading a short-story book in her library. She was in to a lot of sci--fi. I never forgot one story and it was about a group of school children in a lesson. I forget their ages. They were in a gym and there was boxes all over the place. The teacher said "In the boxes are parts. Human parts. And you can rummage around the boxes and if you find a part you like, you can swap it out. Is there are part of you you do not like ? Change it. Be whatever you want to be.". And the children all ran excitedly to the boxes and some changed parts. Some didn't as they were happy with who they were. Others dived in and had a whale of time. At the end, everyone appeared to be happy. One boy was crying because he chose poorly and didn't like his part. But the teacher said "That's not a problem. Nothing is permanent. Choose again or have your original part back if you like.". . That story stuck with me, to this day. And I though back then as I do now, "That's the world I want to live in. The freedom to change what you like and no one cares". Fortunately or unfortunately it’s not possible to change your sex. That’s just biological reality. It’s like crying over why I can’t become a unicorn or a panda. Five year olds do it and then for the most part they grow up. There are about 9,500 people in the UK with Gender Recognition Certificates. Out of a country of what 65 million odd? This whole debate is just another colossal waste of resources that’s typical of a Western society that’s lost its focus and moral compass. There’s a tiny number of people with a genuine issue. We can either inconvenience them or inconvenience half of society. That’s not to say those with genuine issues shouldn’t be treated with respect and reasonable adjustments made for them. But sometimes it’s just necessary to stop being cowards and say “no” to people, an ability Western society has lost. There’s also a larger number of mainly younger people who also have problems, who have been wrongly treated for gender dysphoria by various “charities” and “medical professionals” with an agenda. Instead of treating them for their actual problems (mental health, autism, struggling with being gay, social contagion, just being a bit weird and not fitting in) they’ve been victims of medical negligence and used by people with an agenda and had the most awful medical experiments carried out on them that wouldn’t have been out of place in a Nazi concentration camp. Then there is a much larger group of people for whom this is just another wedge issue to be used to create division and undermine our society in pursuit of their year zero Marxist utopia. " Because getting a GRC is incredibly difficult and even when you have done absolutely everything to meet their requirements you can still be rejected. Thats why. Plus then there access to actual healthcare is awful too. NHS care in some parts of the country are 10+ year waitlists and the best ones still being 2+ years for a first appointment. Private legitimate care costs a fortune. Plus diagnosis is never given out in 1 appointment it normally requires 2-3 with gender specialists (psychiatrists) I completely utterly disagree with your whole point around being wrongly diagnosed because the rate of regret and detransition is so small (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/dispelling-myths-around-detransition) and while people are waiting to receive healthcare people will social transition as thats a requirement to be able to get a diagnosis so even if they “change their mind” they wouldn’t have received a diagnosis to begin with. Plus most trans people who come to the conclusion that they are trans because they have tried every other “solution” and accepting they are trans is the way they can start to live authentically to themselves | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So trans men with beards and muscles will now presumably need to use women's facilities. I'm sure that won't cause any issues. " I would imagine people will carry on as they have been. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. " Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are." Trans men are not generally equipped with the weapon of choice for r*pe, ie a penis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are. Trans men are not generally equipped with the weapon of choice for r*pe, ie a penis."Generally, neither are trans women. It was never about the safety of women and girls. It’s a hate campaign towards trans women . Predators attack women , with most cases occurring in the home. Hate will never win. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are." Trans women are not the threat either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. I have been to a number of events where the designated female toilets were inadequate in quantity thus resulting in many females resorting to use the male toilets instead. This wasn't because they wanted to make some statement about gender, they were just desperate for a pee. If a man wants to lurk in female toilets what difference does it make if they are trans or not?" Exactly! Persecuting a minority is not the answer. Also, trans women do not “Lurk” in female toilets. I go in a cubicle , do what I need to do, then wash my hands and leave. I don’t lurk ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are. Trans men are not generally equipped with the weapon of choice for r*pe, ie a penis."Many trans men have completed their lower surgeries and have a penis. Many trans women no longer have the penis they were born with. There are plenty of people out there who cross dress either way for fun or sexual kicks without any intention of medical transition and who aren't actually trans, just enjoying different aesthetics. But for a lot of actually trans people, that's a very relevant part. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are. Trans men are not generally equipped with the weapon of choice for r*pe, ie a penis.
Many trans men have completed their lower surgeries and have a penis.
Many trans women no longer have the penis they were born with.
There are plenty of people out there who cross dress either way for fun or sexual kicks without any intention of medical transition and who aren't actually trans, just enjoying different aesthetics. But for a lot of actually trans people, that's a very relevant part."So are you saying there's different categories of trans people, from those that don't identify with their birth sex, to those having partial surgery and to those having full surgery? Or are they all just trans people? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological women will be put at even more risk now. Trans men will be using the female toilets. There will be women complaining about men in their space. They haven’t grasped what has happened. You reap what you sow ! No new laws have been made. The equality act 2010 still stands . Haters will hate, no matter what ! There’s plenty in these forums. Nothing has changed for me, I’ll carry on as I’ve always done. Trans men are not a threat to women, biological men are. Trans men are not generally equipped with the weapon of choice for r*pe, ie a penis.
Many trans men have completed their lower surgeries and have a penis.
Many trans women no longer have the penis they were born with."For "many trans men" read between 4 and 13%. For "many trans women" read less than 5%. The word 'many' is defined as "a large number of". I'm not sure if your use of 'many' is accurate. Over to the Supreme Court... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So are you saying there's different categories of trans people, from those that don't identify with their birth sex, to those having partial surgery and to those having full surgery? Or are they all just trans people? Mrs x" There's a definite difference between someone who crossdresses for kicks and someone who knows they are trans. No one has to go through that physical trauma. Trans people who simply present every day as the gender they are are still completely valid trans people. Bodily mutilation isn't required. The response was simply to the silly claim that trans men don't have penises, specifically framed as the equipment to r*pe with. The fact is that many trans men do have a penis, and many trans women do not. My transmasculine partner has a fucking wonderful penis. It's made of his flesh, there can be no issues with failing to sustain an erection, in terms of my sensation it feels just like a natural penis. He's not looking to r*pe anyone with it, much like the majority of cis men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So are you saying there's different categories of trans people, from those that don't identify with their birth sex, to those having partial surgery and to those having full surgery? Or are they all just trans people? Mrs x There's a definite difference between someone who crossdresses for kicks and someone who knows they are trans. No one has to go through that physical trauma. Trans people who simply present every day as the gender they are are still completely valid trans people. Bodily mutilation isn't required. The response was simply to the silly claim that trans men don't have penises, specifically framed as the equipment to r*pe with. The fact is that many trans men do have a penis, and many trans women do not. My transmasculine partner has a fucking wonderful penis. It's made of his flesh, there can be no issues with failing to sustain an erection, in terms of my sensation it feels just like a natural penis. He's not looking to r*pe anyone with it, much like the majority of cis men." I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x" Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune." But no matter what anyone says a biological man is a man, a biological woman is a woman. You are conflating gender identity with biological sex, thought you weren't supposed to do that, is gender and sex separate? These people, the lesser men and lesser woman have not required any medical intervention have they though, they are still exactly how the were at birth, that's a huge difference. Confusing isn't it, thanks there's now a definition for us all to follow, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But no matter what anyone says a biological man is a man, a biological woman is a woman. You are conflating gender identity with biological sex, thought you weren't supposed to do that, is gender and sex separate? These people, the lesser men and lesser woman have not required any medical intervention have they though, they are still exactly how the were at birth, that's a huge difference. Confusing isn't it, thanks there's now a definition for us all to follow, Mrs x" You asked about judgement within communities. Not about biological anything. You've been consistently using the word trans, which I don't believe there is a biological definition for trans beyond gender identity, so why would biology be at the forefront of any response? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune." IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But no matter what anyone says a biological man is a man, a biological woman is a woman. You are conflating gender identity with biological sex, thought you weren't supposed to do that, is gender and sex separate? These people, the lesser men and lesser woman have not required any medical intervention have they though, they are still exactly how the were at birth, that's a huge difference. Confusing isn't it, thanks there's now a definition for us all to follow, Mrs x You asked about judgement within communities. Not about biological anything. You've been consistently using the word trans, which I don't believe there is a biological definition for trans beyond gender identity, so why would biology be at the forefront of any response?" You mentioned it when you asked about cis men, they are biological men and this has now been confirmed by the highest court in the land. This also answers your question about why biology is at the forefront of this discussion, that's the whole point of this thread, the definition of a woman is a biological woman and her biological sex. As for your problem with me using trans as a prefix because you '... don't believe there is a biological definition for trans beyond gender identity' leaves me utterly confused. This is because in other such threads you are not allowed to mix gender and sex. I thought that gender is fluid but sex isn't. To become trans you have to undergo surgery to achieve your desired sex so this is normally permanent to change gender you only have to follow your feelings and identify with your chosen feelings. That's why I use the term trans woman or trans man. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises." The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Next thing will be trans portaloos placed by councils next to public toilets." And reeves will probably want to charge money to use it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward." As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x" Trans men and women have always existed. They have been using the same bathrooms and changing rooms as everyone else. It's only because of the media and a recent anti-trans movement you think transgenderism is a "recent" thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x" Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned it when you asked about cis men, they are biological men and this has now been confirmed by the highest court in the land. This also answers your question about why biology is at the forefront of this discussion, that's the whole point of this thread, the definition of a woman is a biological woman and her biological sex. As for your problem with me using trans as a prefix because you '... don't believe there is a biological definition for trans beyond gender identity' leaves me utterly confused. This is because in other such threads you are not allowed to mix gender and sex. I thought that gender is fluid but sex isn't. To become trans you have to undergo surgery to achieve your desired sex so this is normally permanent to change gender you only have to follow your feelings and identify with your chosen feelings. That's why I use the term trans woman or trans man. Mrs x" Was there an issue with cis men not being identified as men? Judgement between communities isn't in quite the same league as legal and medical definitions. You may notice I have not at any point in this thread disputed the biological. There doesn't seem much point trying to bring it up as a trump card when all I've been talking about is related to the identity or the medical transition. If you don't want to class people who aren't going through the full surgeries as trans, that's up to you. Many people have opinions. But it seems irrelevant to the equation if you're only interested in the original biology anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant?" The statement above doesn't suggest trans people didn't exist until recently. It says the commonly held understanding was a woman or a man was born female or male. Recently that definition had been altered to a biological woman could become a man and a biological man could become a woman. Hence the need for a court to legally settle the definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant?" You want to insult me again, even though I've never said this. Maybe you should read things properly rather than skim read and worst still try and push your narrative by basically making things up about what others haven't said, but if it makes you feel better... Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant?" 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned it when you asked about cis men, they are biological men and this has now been confirmed by the highest court in the land. This also answers your question about why biology is at the forefront of this discussion, that's the whole point of this thread, the definition of a woman is a biological woman and her biological sex. As for your problem with me using trans as a prefix because you '... don't believe there is a biological definition for trans beyond gender identity' leaves me utterly confused. This is because in other such threads you are not allowed to mix gender and sex. I thought that gender is fluid but sex isn't. To become trans you have to undergo surgery to achieve your desired sex so this is normally permanent to change gender you only have to follow your feelings and identify with your chosen feelings. That's why I use the term trans woman or trans man. Mrs x Was there an issue with cis men not being identified as men? Judgement between communities isn't in quite the same league as legal and medical definitions. You may notice I have not at any point in this thread disputed the biological. There doesn't seem much point trying to bring it up as a trump card when all I've been talking about is related to the identity or the medical transition. If you don't want to class people who aren't going through the full surgeries as trans, that's up to you. Many people have opinions. But it seems irrelevant to the equation if you're only interested in the original biology anyway." If you are not disputing biology why are you asking if men have had problems being identified as men... of course they haven't, it's such a strange thing to ask. Bringing biology up, on a thread about a Supreme Court judgement that used biological as a term for a definition is not using a Trump card, unless you think it 'Trumps' your argument and that's on you, it is however essential to the debate. You seem to think I am doing this for some 'aim' but all I am doing is quoting the judge, if you have any problems with that address it with the Supreme Court. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you are not disputing biology why are you asking if men have had problems being identified as men... of course they haven't, it's such a strange thing to ask. Bringing biology up, on a thread about a Supreme Court judgement that used biological as a term for a definition is not using a Trump card, unless you think it 'Trumps' your argument and that's on you, it is however essential to the debate. You seem to think I am doing this for some 'aim' but all I am doing is quoting the judge, if you have any problems with that address it with the Supreme Court. Mrs x" I was responding to a comment about trans men not have penises. Then I was responding to comments which directly quoted me as it was a reasonable assumption that the queries within them were aimed at me. You asked if the trans community judges based on surgeries or intentions or just how trans they're perceived to be. When I asked if cis men face the same issues about not being man enough to other men it was like when someone responds to a question with does a bear shit in the woods or is the pope catholic. The answer was so obvious that it wasn't a assumed the answer was already known. Apologies if that was misunderstood. I was not actually asking about cis men or women 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"9 General (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)." Note that this seems to be saying that in the limited context of this law gender and sex are the same thing. It then (rather confusingly given the use of "all purposes" goes on to specify a few exceptions for instance... "19 Sport (1) A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act. (2) This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure— (a) fair competition, or (b) the safety of competitors, at the event or events. (3) “Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature. (4) A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport. 21 Foreign gender change and marriage (1) A person’s gender is not to be regarded as having changed by reason only that it has changed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom." What the latest Supreme Court ruling appears to be saying is that section 9 paragraph 1 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 DOES NOT apply to the Equality Act 2010. I'm still reading up on the ruling and trying to better understand their reasoning as at first sight it seems that EA2010 doesn't appear to explicitly override the key section of GRA2004. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The confusion between the legal meaning of sex and gender is perhaps at the crux of the controversy about the Supreme Court's recent ruling. In the Gender Recognition Act 2004 it says... 9 General (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman). Note that this seems to be saying that in the limited context of this law gender and sex are the same thing. It then (rather confusingly given the use of "all purposes" goes on to specify a few exceptions for instance... 19 Sport (1) A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act. (2) This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure— (a) fair competition, or (b) the safety of competitors, at the event or events. (3) “Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature. (4) A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport. 21 Foreign gender change and marriage (1) A person’s gender is not to be regarded as having changed by reason only that it has changed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. What the latest Supreme Court ruling appears to be saying is that section 9 paragraph 1 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 DOES NOT apply to the Equality Act 2010. I'm still reading up on the ruling and trying to better understand their reasoning as at first sight it seems that EA2010 doesn't appear to explicitly override the key section of GRA2004." The GRA was seen through Parliament by David Lammy, who also believes a man can grow a cervix. Many of the current confusions stem from his hopeless drafting of the Bill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you are not disputing biology why are you asking if men have had problems being identified as men... of course they haven't, it's such a strange thing to ask. Bringing biology up, on a thread about a Supreme Court judgement that used biological as a term for a definition is not using a Trump card, unless you think it 'Trumps' your argument and that's on you, it is however essential to the debate. You seem to think I am doing this for some 'aim' but all I am doing is quoting the judge, if you have any problems with that address it with the Supreme Court. Mrs x I was responding to a comment about trans men not have penises. Then I was responding to comments which directly quoted me as it was a reasonable assumption that the queries within them were aimed at me. You asked if the trans community judges based on surgeries or intentions or just how trans they're perceived to be. When I asked if cis men face the same issues about not being man enough to other men it was like when someone responds to a question with does a bear shit in the woods or is the pope catholic. The answer was so obvious that it wasn't a assumed the answer was already known. Apologies if that was misunderstood. I was not actually asking about cis men or women 💜" Sorry I misunderstood. I'm only asking about how different trans people are viewed by others because it's confusing and I've seen posts for trans people that blatantly contradict each other. It's a complex issue made more complex because if the trans community cannot agree then that definitely complicates it for everyone else. This issue wasn't discussed in court. The question of defining a woman was and it was because of some trans woman wanting to identify as woman and there are some woman in opposition to this, hence the court case. The court gave its decision based upon the one circumstance we all share.... birth. I would never offend anyone and believe everyone has the right to identify as they choose. This is despite the fact that I may not agree with them, I would never try and upset anyone in real life. However on a forum such as this I believe everyone has the right to express their view as long as you are not offensive and that's what I am doing. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The confusion between the legal meaning of sex and gender is perhaps at the crux of the controversy about the Supreme Court's recent ruling. In the Gender Recognition Act 2004 it says... 9 General (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman). Note that this seems to be saying that in the limited context of this law gender and sex are the same thing. It then (rather confusingly given the use of "all purposes" goes on to specify a few exceptions for instance... 19 Sport (1) A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act. (2) This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure— (a) fair competition, or (b) the safety of competitors, at the event or events. (3) “Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature. (4) A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport. 21 Foreign gender change and marriage (1) A person’s gender is not to be regarded as having changed by reason only that it has changed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. What the latest Supreme Court ruling appears to be saying is that section 9 paragraph 1 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 DOES NOT apply to the Equality Act 2010. I'm still reading up on the ruling and trying to better understand their reasoning as at first sight it seems that EA2010 doesn't appear to explicitly override the key section of GRA2004. The GRA was seen through Parliament by David Lammy, who also believes a man can grow a cervix. Many of the current confusions stem from his hopeless drafting of the Bill." Reminds me of Loretta, Life of Brian and John Cleese, 'Where's the baby going to gestate?' Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense." You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry I misunderstood. I'm only asking about how different trans people are viewed by others because it's confusing and I've seen posts for trans people that blatantly contradict each other. It's a complex issue made more complex because if the trans community cannot agree then that definitely complicates it for everyone else. This issue wasn't discussed in court. The question of defining a woman was and it was because of some trans woman wanting to identify as woman and there are some woman in opposition to this, hence the court case. The court gave its decision based upon the one circumstance we all share.... birth. I would never offend anyone and believe everyone has the right to identify as they choose. This is despite the fact that I may not agree with them, I would never try and upset anyone in real life. However on a forum such as this I believe everyone has the right to express their view as long as you are not offensive and that's what I am doing. Mrs x" No worries, my brain doesn't work in words and sometimes the word vomit that falls off the surface into text doesn't make as much sense to other people as it does to me. I don't mean to be unclear. I feel like the general confusion isn't helped by having TS and CD as the same category on here. I have absolutely no issue with people who just like to dress up occasionally for sex because it's fun and sexy but are happily male the rest of the time. But when they're chucked in the same grouping as people who cannot live happily as a man and spend every day living as best they can to a woman, that doesn't help people understand. But with that said, there isn't a hive mind. Look at us two cis women not thinking exactly the same way about things. Technically the ruling only affects the equality bill. But you've seen the cheers of victory, they're not just about trans women no longer being able to fight the gender pay gap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ?" Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It's not an insult. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ? Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It's not an insult." It can be used as an insult and I think it was here, and I'm not the only one apparently, so hopefully you now know and are not ignorant of this now, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical." Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ? Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It's not an insult. It can be used as an insult and I think it was here, and I'm not the only one apparently, so hopefully you now know and are not ignorant of this now, Mrs x" People can be offended if they choose. I didn't make the post so only the poster knows. When there is a choice to be offended, don't be. It pisses of those who actually want to insult others not hitting their mark. Now you know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point." Better tell the OED their definition is incorrect then 
Good luck with that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point." Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it "Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'. It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it
Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'.
It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place. "Dictionaries reflect usage - spot on, still doesn't moot it. It means it's an acceptable definition. As for the nhs... pfffftttt there is so much wrong with the nhs, the language used is a trivial point! It's merely perceived inclusivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it
Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'.
It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place.
Dictionaries reflect usage - spot on, still doesn't moot it. It means it's an acceptable definition.
As for the nhs... pfffftttt there is so much wrong with the nhs, the language used is a trivial point! It's merely perceived inclusivity."I disagree. The NHS is supposed to represent medical excellence. If it uses language that isn’t widely accepted or understood outside of certain niche circles, it sounds ideological rather than medical. The NHS should always use clearly understood language that reassures the public, not confuse them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is. "I mean, when clarifying that I'm referring to someone who was both born male and identifies as male rather than any of the other variants, it's pretty relevant context to avoid confusing people 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is. "It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities. It’s going to take some people time to readjust. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
I mean, when clarifying that I'm referring to someone who was both born male and identifies as male rather than any of the other variants, it's pretty relevant context to avoid confusing people 💜"Just "male" will be understood by all rational people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is. "But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word. "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”)." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ? Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It's not an insult. It can be used as an insult and I think it was here, and I'm not the only one apparently, so hopefully you now know and are not ignorant of this now, Mrs x People can be offended if they choose. I didn't make the post so only the poster knows. When there is a choice to be offended, don't be. It pisses of those who actually want to insult others not hitting their mark. Now you know "Who said I was offended. Now you know haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
"The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point. However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it
Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'.
It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place.
Dictionaries reflect usage - spot on, still doesn't moot it. It means it's an acceptable definition.
As for the nhs... pfffftttt there is so much wrong with the nhs, the language used is a trivial point! It's merely perceived inclusivity.
I disagree. The NHS is supposed to represent medical excellence. If it uses language that isn’t widely accepted or understood outside of certain niche circles, it sounds ideological rather than medical. The NHS should always use clearly understood language that reassures the public, not confuse them.
"In an ideal world the nhs would be a fantastic service and fantastic employer. Now it leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea what part you are disagreeing to but I will add that IMO with all that is wrong in the nhs, their use of language is trivial compared to the long waiting lists, lack of GPs, lack of dentists and so on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust."Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
"I think that's the problem, as far as I can see it is merely to elaborate on the EA2010. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it
Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'.
It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place.
Dictionaries reflect usage - spot on, still doesn't moot it. It means it's an acceptable definition.
As for the nhs... pfffftttt there is so much wrong with the nhs, the language used is a trivial point! It's merely perceived inclusivity.
I disagree. The NHS is supposed to represent medical excellence. If it uses language that isn’t widely accepted or understood outside of certain niche circles, it sounds ideological rather than medical. The NHS should always use clearly understood language that reassures the public, not confuse them.
In an ideal world the nhs would be a fantastic service and fantastic employer. Now it leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea what part you are disagreeing to but I will add that IMO with all that is wrong in the nhs, their use of language is trivial compared to the long waiting lists, lack of GPs, lack of dentists and so on."What part I'm disagreeing with is, language used by the NHS is not trivial as per my previous comment. Saying it is trivial is underestimating the influence of language, and why it was necessary to have a word defined in court due to misuses. It shows how far we have drifted from clear communication. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there's a difference between cross dressers, transvestites and trans sensually but within the trans community are trans people all considered the same, despite there being quite obvious differences? For example fully transitioned, partial transition and those that don't identify with their birth sex but don't want surgery. Are they all viewed the same within the trans community? Mrs x Are all cis men viewed the same within the male community? Do you never hear men saying someone isn't a real man because of some ridiculous requirement someone made up and spread through the common psyche? Do you never hear women claiming someone isn't a real woman because she does this, or doesn't do that? There's assholes in every community. Many people try to make themselves feel more secure in what they are by excluding others. No community is some perfect hippie commune. IMO a transwoman is someone who cannot stand her penis and makes the effort to have it removed. In the past I have debated with a member here that the fact they love their penis and did not intend to have it removed, denies her the transwoman label. The stories I've read about men transitioning into women who have gone through so much trauma, the resonating factor is their loathing of the phallus that represents "man". So unless they cannot go through surgery, they fully transition. I have nothing but empathy and compassion for these people who are trapped in the wrong body and want their outside to align with their inside. Those who love their penis? A different category please. Women do not have penises.The big difference is woman are born as woman, men as men. Up until very recently this was always seen as the norm. This recent judgement just confirms this. Mrs x Trans people didn't exist until only recently? Are you joking or just ignorant? 'Ignorant' Why is it that one side of this argument always resorts to personal abuse ? Ignorant means lacking knowledge. It's not an insult. It can be used as an insult and I think it was here, and I'm not the only one apparently, so hopefully you now know and are not ignorant of this now, Mrs x People can be offended if they choose. I didn't make the post so only the poster knows. When there is a choice to be offended, don't be. It pisses of those who actually want to insult others not hitting their mark. Now you know Who said I was offended. Now you know haha,
Mrs x"Glad you weren't. There are far too many people offended in this world or offended on behalf of others. It's so tiresome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change."Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean."Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?"Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true. There's definitely more to follow, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the birth certificate being redesigned: Assigned sex at birth : Reassigned sex: Considering I don't agree with birth certificates being altered as they are an actual represention of the time of registration (ie within 6 weeks of birth), this could be the way forward. As no one is assigned a sex at birth this would be a nonsense. You don't like the terminology, tough! Food for food, if you're not assigned a sex at birth why do we have "gender reassignment". Rhetorical. Not tough for me at all, I'm happily watching a return to reality and the end of cult like language. I'm sure our wonderful NHS will catch up at some point. Why mention nhs? Gender reassignment surgery is older than the nhs. Done in Germany I thin, so definitely different terminology. It'd be interesting to know when the English terminology came about. Still doesn't moot the OED though, does it
Dictionaries reflect usage, they don't dictate it. The NHS uses 'Assign' because it is heavily influenced by trans activism. It also refers to women as 'birthgivers' or 'people with a cervix'.
It was also the NHS of course where the horrors of the Tavistock Clinic took place.
Dictionaries reflect usage - spot on, still doesn't moot it. It means it's an acceptable definition.
As for the nhs... pfffftttt there is so much wrong with the nhs, the language used is a trivial point! It's merely perceived inclusivity.
I disagree. The NHS is supposed to represent medical excellence. If it uses language that isn’t widely accepted or understood outside of certain niche circles, it sounds ideological rather than medical. The NHS should always use clearly understood language that reassures the public, not confuse them.
In an ideal world the nhs would be a fantastic service and fantastic employer. Now it leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea what part you are disagreeing to but I will add that IMO with all that is wrong in the nhs, their use of language is trivial compared to the long waiting lists, lack of GPs, lack of dentists and so on.
What part I'm disagreeing with is, language used by the NHS is not trivial as per my previous comment.
Saying it is trivial is underestimating the influence of language, and why it was necessary to have a word defined in court due to misuses. It shows how far we have drifted from clear communication."Which is why I clarified my use of trivial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean.
Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs:
Penises allowed
No penises allowed "You mean biological penises, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?"I'll answer with a question: how do you think it will affect the average person? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x"They make far more sense. My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean.
Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs:
Penises allowed
No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x"Trans men have biological penises. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean.
Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs:
Penises allowed
No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises."OK.... Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x"Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction. I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x
They make far more sense.
My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜"I'm not saying this should be an issue, just providing clarity about the penis in question should the issue arise, as per the courts ruling. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean.
Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs:
Penises allowed
No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises."Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x
They make far more sense.
My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜 I'm not saying this should be an issue, just providing clarity about the penis in question should the issue arise, as per the courts ruling.
Mrs x"What clarity is needed for a bathroom? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises."It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing. "And it's the policies that will change as I stated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x
They make far more sense.
My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜 I'm not saying this should be an issue, just providing clarity about the penis in question should the issue arise, as per the courts ruling.
Mrs x"My suggestion is inclusive for fully transitioned trans  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
But not in the context of the Supreme Court ruling, when they use the word "woman" they aren't talking about the everyday meaning of the word.
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman”other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point.
However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean.
Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs:
Penises allowed
No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises."If the penis is made from the person's own skin and has a blood supply, why is that not biological? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x
They make far more sense.
My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜 I'm not saying this should be an issue, just providing clarity about the penis in question should the issue arise, as per the courts ruling.
Mrs x
My suggestion is inclusive for fully transitioned trans "That's why I like it 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜"Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜"Isn't it funny that the people who are pedantic about words are not pedantic when it suits them  (hey, I'm probably guilty too until corrected ). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed
You mean biological penises, Mrs x
They make far more sense.
My born female partner with his massive dong should not be using the women's toilets 💜 I'm not saying this should be an issue, just providing clarity about the penis in question should the issue arise, as per the courts ruling.
Mrs x
My suggestion is inclusive for fully transitioned trans
That's why I like it 💜"And it ensures female safety from penises (at the end of the day, isn't that where all this surfaces from?) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated."mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜"If anything is constructed which wasn't there at birth its not biological, otherwise this would not be an issue would it. You are either born with it or your not. I'm not being mean it's just a fact. The court has taken this approach too. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong. "Does this mean men who have surgically enhanced their penis aren't welcome either? It might be their own tissue and nerves and blood vessels, but because it's been altered to improve their life it's no longer a biological penis? What definition of biology are you going from? 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜If anything is constructed which wasn't there at birth its not biological, otherwise this would not be an issue would it.
You are either born with it or your not. I'm not being mean it's just a fact.
The court has taken this approach too.
Mrs x"It is going to take time for people to adjust, it wont happen overnight that's for sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong. "Transwomen can grow their own boobs through hormones.. biological | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them...."British Transport Police have come out and said Trans woman will now be searched by male officers and vice versa for Trans men. It's already changing. You cannot ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Transwomen can grow their own boobs through hormones.. biological "Not hormones they were born without prescribed, medical intervention. It's simple really, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point. However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean." Agreed. But that still leaves us in a situation where there is a conflict between GRA2004 which explicitly says that people can change their legal sex status (but not their biological sex) by obtaining a GRC and the Supreme Court ruling which is saying they can't even though though it appears that Parliament hasn't explicitly changed the law to undo the effect of GRA2004. The everday notion of what the word sex means doesn't impact the legal concept of sex as codified in the Acts. Basically it's a mess caused by ambiguous legal language. Perhaps it will be addressed by future legislation? For now my concern is with the possible negative consequences of this ruling for vulnerable people both trans and non-trans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them...."Those female nurses knowing no penises will enter their changing rooms will continue to change in those rooms. Those female prisoners will know no penises etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜If anything is constructed which wasn't there at birth its not biological, otherwise this would not be an issue would it.
You are either born with it or your not. I'm not being mean it's just a fact.
The court has taken this approach too.
Mrs x"Look up the term biological... otherwise transplants wouldn't work. I think we've found a hole in the SC ruling 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 and it's not a gaping vagina of any sort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜If anything is constructed which wasn't there at birth its not biological, otherwise this would not be an issue would it.
You are either born with it or your not. I'm not being mean it's just a fact.
The court has taken this approach too.
Mrs x
It is going to take time for people to adjust, it wont happen overnight that's for sure. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Does this mean men who have surgically enhanced their penis aren't welcome either? It might be their own tissue and nerves and blood vessels, but because it's been altered to improve their life it's no longer a biological penis?
What definition of biology are you going from? 💜"Dictionary definition: Relating to the natural processes of living things: I read that as, a surgically constructed penis wouldn't be biological because it has been built, not developed through natural male biology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point. However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean. Agreed. But that still leaves us in a situation where there is a conflict between GRA2004 which explicitly says that people can change their legal sex status (but not their biological sex) by obtaining a GRC and the Supreme Court ruling which is saying they can't even though though it appears that Parliament hasn't explicitly changed the law to undo the effect of GRA2004. The everday notion of what the word sex means doesn't impact the legal concept of sex as codified in the Acts. Basically it's a mess caused by ambiguous legal language. Perhaps it will be addressed by future legislation? For now my concern is with the possible negative consequences of this ruling for vulnerable people both trans and non-trans. " The Supreme Court can make a ruling which can change existing or make new court, that's what they have done here, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them....British Transport Police have come out and said Trans woman will now be searched by male officers and vice versa for Trans men. It's already changing.
You cannot ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court.
Mrs x"God that's so fucking wrong (for fully transitioned trans... the EA2010 needs reviewing blody quickly. The least they could do is have one of each sex and ask the potentially offending person which sex they want to search them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Transwomen can grow their own boobs through hormones.. biological Not hormones they were born without prescribed, medical intervention. It's simple really,
Mrs x"I'm pointing out using the word biological is wrong. They should use sex assigned at birth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Does this mean men who have surgically enhanced their penis aren't welcome either? It might be their own tissue and nerves and blood vessels, but because it's been altered to improve their life it's no longer a biological penis?
What definition of biology are you going from? 💜
Dictionary definition: Relating to the natural processes of living things:
I read that as, a surgically constructed penis wouldn't be biological because it has been built, not developed through natural male biology.
"If it wasn't living, it'd be necrotic tissue. I know what you're trying to say but the language you're using is inaccurate. Let's face it, it's language that is causing all these problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The court did clarify what “woman” means in UK law under the Equality Act. That’s the whole point. However the court isn't trying to police everyday language, its ruling reinforces that “woman” in law means biologically female, which aligns with what most people already understand the word to mean. Agreed. But that still leaves us in a situation where there is a conflict between GRA2004 which explicitly says that people can change their legal sex status (but not their biological sex) by obtaining a GRC and the Supreme Court ruling which is saying they can't even though though it appears that Parliament hasn't explicitly changed the law to undo the effect of GRA2004. The everday notion of what the word sex means doesn't impact the legal concept of sex as codified in the Acts. Basically it's a mess caused by ambiguous legal language. Perhaps it will be addressed by future legislation? For now my concern is with the possible negative consequences of this ruling for vulnerable people both trans and non-trans. " You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them." Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond?" As I have, scroll up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If this actually happens how should people respond? As I have, scroll up." Yes, I saw your post and I agree with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them...."I’ll be carrying on using women’s bathrooms as I have for 15 years or so , the social reality is simply those that pass visually won’t get agro those that don’t and women that exhibit non conformity of trad feminine traits to certain people will get hassle potentially and asked to leave or assaulted if very unlucky . Unless it becomes criminal activity it’s civil . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Transwomen can grow their own boobs through hormones.. biological Not hormones they were born without prescribed, medical intervention. It's simple really,
Mrs x
I'm pointing out using the word biological is wrong. They should use sex assigned at birth."No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond?" What you mean is, biological men being strip-searched by biological men, and biological women being strip-searched by biological women. FIFY | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them....
I’ll be carrying on using women’s bathrooms as I have for 15 years or so , the social reality is simply those that pass visually won’t get agro those that don’t and women that exhibit non conformity of trad feminine traits to certain people will get hassle potentially and asked to leave or assaulted if very unlucky .
Unless it becomes criminal activity it’s civil . "You are right about how it will affect certain people because they look a certain way. However if anyone gets the notion that a trans person is in a changing room or toilet, that according to the new law, they shouldn't be in it could be criminal now rather than civil, in the same way a man would be treated if he went into the ladies. But you are right it creates a system of discrimination based on looks, which in itself is very sad, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Transwomen can grow their own boobs through hormones.. biological Not hormones they were born without prescribed, medical intervention. It's simple really,
Mrs x
I'm pointing out using the word biological is wrong. They should use sex assigned at birth. No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is.
Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than
Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this.
Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too.
Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything.
Mrs x"Why are you conflating sexual orientation with the sex that is ASSIGNED at birth. Tough if you don't like it. You go argue with the OED. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond? What you mean is, biological men being strip-searched by biological men, and biological women being strip-searched by biological women. FIFY "Oh the empathy is large with this one. No-one has ruled that trans don't exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x" 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, we could have new verbose binary toilet signs: Penises allowed No penises allowed You mean biological penises, Mrs x
Trans men have biological penises.
Trans men are biologically female, they don’t have biological penises.
It's made from their own living flesh. It's not like a synthetic strap on. It is constructed from their existing biological matter 💜
Understood but, it is a surgically constructed organ. Biological would need to be developed through male biology and genetics and development through puberty. That is obviously my opinion on my understanding and I could be wrong.
Does this mean men who have surgically enhanced their penis aren't welcome either? It might be their own tissue and nerves and blood vessels, but because it's been altered to improve their life it's no longer a biological penis?
What definition of biology are you going from? 💜"Obviously not, just like those ladies who have enhanced their chests. They were biologically before surgery. What next changing g biology for those with hip or knee replacements, eye lens replacement, hair transplants. It's obvious what biological means here. They could have used other words but they haven't probably because they don't want to upset anyone. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I notice that the prefixes "cis" and "biological" have been used on this thread before the words man and woman. These are completely unnecessary. Every rational human being on the planet knows, and always has known, what a man or a woman is.
It’s the use of prefixes like “cis” that reinforces the false idea that man and woman are variations on a theme, rather than grounded in biological realities.
It’s going to take some people time to readjust.
Nah, everyone will be as they were. It's policies that will change.
Why do you think will carry on regardless of a clear definition? I don't understand that thinking?Well the British Transport police aren't carrying on, they are definitely switching things up if what I've read is true.
There's definitely more to follow,
Mrs x
Exactly, the repercussions of this ruling are wide. Not in the way I have seen some people describe a breakdown in society, that has become a defensive reaction.
I can see the big changes appearing in schools, who will need to ensure children are being taught factual definitions, and women's shared spaces in places like the NHS and other large organisations customer and business facing.
And it's the policies that will change as I stated.
mmmm, I'm not sure you can say people will carry on as they were, if things are changing around them....
I’ll be carrying on using women’s bathrooms as I have for 15 years or so , the social reality is simply those that pass visually won’t get agro those that don’t and women that exhibit non conformity of trad feminine traits to certain people will get hassle potentially and asked to leave or assaulted if very unlucky .
Unless it becomes criminal activity it’s civil . You are right about how it will affect certain people because they look a certain way.
However if anyone gets the notion that a trans person is in a changing room or toilet, that according to the new law, they shouldn't be in it could be criminal now rather than civil, in the same way a man would be treated if he went into the ladies.
But you are right it creates a system of discrimination based on looks, which in itself is very sad,
Mrs x"Unfortunately this is what it will become now and its scary not just for myself but others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is." So in this case the sex is assigned by the person doing the scan. In this context assignment means the setting of a variable to a value, like sex = male. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's obvious what biological means here. They could have used other words but they haven't probably because they don't want to upset anyone. Mrs x" I really don't think that not upsetting anyone is high on the priority list. What other words would be more appropriate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜" You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's obvious what biological means here. They could have used other words but they haven't probably because they don't want to upset anyone. Mrs x I really don't think that not upsetting anyone is high on the priority list. What other words would be more appropriate?" I'm not making up the phrase the courts are but they could have said things like natural woman, natural man, those kind of things, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x" Trans isn't a sexuality 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. So in this case the sex is assigned by the person doing the scan. In this context assignment means the setting of a variable to a value, like sex = male. " And like the oed states, to classify. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond? What you mean is, biological men being strip-searched by biological men, and biological women being strip-searched by biological women. FIFY
Oh the empathy is large with this one. No-one has ruled that trans don't exist. "Meh. A man is a man and a woman is a woman no matter what clothes he or she wears, and regardless of what they've had lopped off or stuck on. Sane people know this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x" And unfortunately its still legal to do conversion therapy even though it has been promised to be made illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond? What you mean is, biological men being strip-searched by biological men, and biological women being strip-searched by biological women. FIFY
Oh the empathy is large with this one. No-one has ruled that trans don't exist.
Meh. A man is a man and a woman is a woman no matter what clothes he or she wears, and regardless of what they've had lopped off or stuck on. Sane people know this. "So everyone who disagrees is now insane? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x" For you to say sexual orientation is there at birth is complete bs as well as going off on a tangent to the context of the thread. To suggest such a thing would be to state it's a genetic factor/or written in your DNA. If it is, we're years from discovering it. Our sexual orientation can be influenced by our personal trajectory in life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x For you to say sexual orientation is there at birth is complete bs as well as going off on a tangent to the context of the thread. To suggest such a thing would be to state it's a genetic factor/or written in your DNA. If it is, we're years from discovering it. Our sexual orientation can be influenced by our personal trajectory in life. " It's a nature nurture matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x Trans isn't a sexuality 💜" You are actually changing your sex, nothings more sexual, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. So in this case the sex is assigned by the person doing the scan. In this context assignment means the setting of a variable to a value, like sex = male. " That's not to a person though it's to a programme, what about before the programme existed? Nobody assigns you a sex, you either are or you aren't but sure you'll use some kind of linguistic trickery to suit your narrative, can't wait for your next attempt at flipping the obvious, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x For you to say sexual orientation is there at birth is complete bs as well as going off on a tangent to the context of the thread. To suggest such a thing would be to state it's a genetic factor/or written in your DNA. If it is, we're years from discovering it. Our sexual orientation can be influenced by our personal trajectory in life. It's a nature nurture matter." No its not, it's nature not nurture, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x Trans isn't a sexuality 💜You are actually changing your sex, nothings more sexual, Mrs x" .... It's like saying something is so awe inspiring that it's the epitome of awful. There's a clear distinction between the use of the word sex referring to sexuality and referring to sex as in gender. If you call someone a fucking moron you're not calling them a moron who is mid fuck, despite that technically being an accurate way to read the words individually without context. My sex is female. My sexuality is not female. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are actually changing your sex, nothings more sexual" Trans is about gender identity. Sexuality is about who one in attracted to. These things are often independent of each other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is assigned at birth, no one. It's a ridiculous term. You are what you are from conception. You get a scan at 20 weeks and that tells you what the 'biological' sex is. Assigned infers someone is giving you something. That's just not the case, you are what you are from the beginning, nobody has a say over that than Mother nature herself. If you don't like it take it up with her but you cannot change this. Assigned my arse, does that mean my gay brother in law was born straight and then assigned gay by some stood at his birth with a clipboard, ridiculous, you are what you are from birth and unfortunately this includes those trans people who grow up realising something needs to change, or is there somebody'assigning' them as such too. Nature decides your biology not nurture, for the unfortunate few they are lucky enough to live in an age were changes can be made but that does not change everything. Mrs x 20 week scans are based entirely on a visual and have been known to be wrong. Post 16 weeks does have a 99.9% rate of agreeing with the gender assigned at birth, but with around 1600 babies born every day in the UK alone that's 3 kids every 2 days where the scan said one sex and the presentation at birth said another. Sex is put on the birth certificate based almost entirely on the visual of genitalia that won't actually be finished forming externally for more than a decade. And then there's anomalies. I knew a hermaphrodite many years ago. He was assigned male at birth because visually he had a penis. He also had a cervix, but that wasn't discovered til years after his sex was assigned at birth. People with XY chromosomes who's bodies don't process testosterone properly present as female, but retain undescended testes which sometimes aren't discovered until well into adulthood, if at all. Nobody has claimed assigning sexuality at birth. That's obviously preposterous. Whether it's inherent in nature or not you can't know who or what someone is sexually attracted to until they're old enough to understand what sexually attraction is for them, and even then you can only know if they're honest with you 💜You most definitely are what you are from birth, gay people are gay, heteros are straight, us bisexuals are just greedy as the joke goes. But you cannot make someone gay or not, they tried in the 50s or 60s in a famous experiment using electro shock therapy in aversion therapy to change sensuality but guess what it never worked, not one gay guy was turned straight. So agree you won't know what you are at birth and it will take years to discover but you are what you are from birth, gay straight or trans. Mrs x For you to say sexual orientation is there at birth is complete bs as well as going off on a tangent to the context of the thread. To suggest such a thing would be to state it's a genetic factor/or written in your DNA. If it is, we're years from discovering it. Our sexual orientation can be influenced by our personal trajectory in life. " Not true, look up the research. If having your balls wired up to the national grid and having them zap you everything you got a hard on looking at pics of cocks didn't turn any of the gay guys straight then nothing would. Telling them to be a good boy and man up every few hours just isn't going to cut the mustard. And let's suppose you are right and in the future the environment we live in and the circumstances we find ourselves were so camp that every guy caught 'the gay' then humanity is fucked and not in a nice way. But it's not going to happen nature has sorted that and most people are born with the one goal all living things have and that's to pass on their genetic code. There's nothing else that matters to all living things and that's why most people are born with this aim and are straight or at least hetero friendly, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not true, look up the research. If having your balls wired up to the national grid and having them zap you everything you got a hard on looking at pics of cocks didn't turn any of the gay guys straight then nothing would. Telling them to be a good boy and man up every few hours just isn't going to cut the mustard. And let's suppose you are right and in the future the environment we live in and the circumstances we find ourselves were so camp that every guy caught 'the gay' then humanity is fucked and not in a nice way. But it's not going to happen nature has sorted that and most people are born with the one goal all living things have and that's to pass on their genetic code. There's nothing else that matters to all living things and that's why most people are born with this aim and are straight or at least hetero friendly, Mrs x" You can't torture someone out of their sexual preference is the foundation here? Jesus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right there will be changes and they will be far reaching. It will take time to settle and see what they are, and how people respond to them. Well if the news story is correct we will soon see trans women being strip-searched by male officers. And trans men being strip-searched by female officers. If this actually happens how should people respond?" Shall we say the same way as those who are responsible for carrying out the searches on trans men and women responded, when they were told a female officer would be searching a biological male that identified as a woman and male officer would be searching a biological female who identified as a male? You see, this is the inherent problem, we can find fault in everything we don't like and turn a blind just as easily to things | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not true, look up the research. If having your balls wired up to the national grid and having them zap you everything you got a hard on looking at pics of cocks didn't turn any of the gay guys straight then nothing would. Telling them to be a good boy and man up every few hours just isn't going to cut the mustard. And let's suppose you are right and in the future the environment we live in and the circumstances we find ourselves were so camp that every guy caught 'the gay' then humanity is fucked and not in a nice way. But it's not going to happen nature has sorted that and most people are born with the one goal all living things have and that's to pass on their genetic code. There's nothing else that matters to all living things and that's why most people are born with this aim and are straight or at least hetero friendly, Mrs x You can't torture someone out of their sexual preference is the foundation here? Jesus." I didn't do it but it happened. I'm just talking about it because I believe sensuality is nature not nurture. It means that I wholeheartedly believe that any trans person is 100% genuine in their beliefs, like i say you are what you are. Anyone who suggests that it's nurture based is on dodgy ground. It allows someone to say oh well my circumstances have changed now so I want to transition back. As we all know this doesn't happen very often so I believe that nature has the upper hand here. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are actually changing your sex, nothings more sexual Trans is about gender identity. Sexuality is about who one in attracted to. These things are often independent of each other. " Trans is not about gender. You are literally transitioning from one sex to another. Gender is about how you identify within the spectrum of male and female roles. You can change gender but you cannot change sex unless you transition so it's absolutely about sex. Confusing isn't it? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are actually changing your sex, nothings more sexual Trans is about gender identity. Sexuality is about who one in attracted to. These things are often independent of each other. Trans is not about gender. You are literally transitioning from one sex to another. Gender is about how you identify within the spectrum of male and female roles. You can change gender but you cannot change sex unless you transition so it's absolutely about sex. Confusing isn't it? Mrs x" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not true, look up the research. If having your balls wired up to the national grid and having them zap you everything you got a hard on looking at pics of cocks didn't turn any of the gay guys straight then nothing would. Telling them to be a good boy and man up every few hours just isn't going to cut the mustard. And let's suppose you are right and in the future the environment we live in and the circumstances we find ourselves were so camp that every guy caught 'the gay' then humanity is fucked and not in a nice way. But it's not going to happen nature has sorted that and most people are born with the one goal all living things have and that's to pass on their genetic code. There's nothing else that matters to all living things and that's why most people are born with this aim and are straight or at least hetero friendly, Mrs x You can't torture someone out of their sexual preference is the foundation here? Jesus. I didn't do it but it happened. I'm just talking about it because I believe sensuality is nature not nurture. It means that I wholeheartedly believe that any trans person is 100% genuine in their beliefs, like i say you are what you are. Anyone who suggests that it's nurture based is on dodgy ground. It allows someone to say oh well my circumstances have changed now so I want to transition back. As we all know this doesn't happen very often so I believe that nature has the upper hand here. Mrs x" Trans is not a sexuality. And, still absolutely not on board with that, just working from the logic presented. You're saying that people are born trans. Which means nature has put a 100% genuine female soul (or whatever word you want to use for that) in a male body, or vice versa. But you can't deny nature? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
