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 |  |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just reading about the "emergency demo" by trans activists in Trafalgar Square this afternoon where they sprayed graffiti on the statue of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett. One activist organisation spokeperson then had the nerve to say "when you attack trans women you attack all trans people and women". So why deface a suffragette statue? They really are up there with flat earthers, conflating that as a result of the supreme court verdict, anyone who isn't trans must be a trans hater." I would be fascinated to know how many of them are on the spectrum. I'm guessing most, if not all. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just reading about the "emergency demo" by trans activists in Trafalgar Square this afternoon where they sprayed graffiti on the statue of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett. One activist organisation spokeperson then had the nerve to say "when you attack trans women you attack all trans people and women". So why deface a suffragette statue? They really are up there with flat earthers, conflating that as a result of the supreme court verdict, anyone who isn't trans must be a trans hater. I would be fascinated to know how many of them are on the spectrum. I'm guessing most, if not all." I am not on any spectrum whatsoever. Yes to protests as it’s an enshrined right for subjects to be allowed that right , no to acts of vandalism though. Criminal damage is criminal damage end of day much like with other protestors throwing stuff on paintings. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wouldn't this be part 4? Isn't it pretty much flogging a dead horse at this stage, everyone has said their piece and it's just going round in circles. All this is going to do is create more arguments than actually creating a sensible discussion." That’s prob the point of it now from some members to throw a grenade and sit back | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Also “On the spectrum “ is a discriminatory statement! "  No, it really isn't. It's a ponderance, nothing more. Don't make mountains out of molehills  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just reading about the "emergency demo" by trans activists in Trafalgar Square this afternoon where they sprayed graffiti on the statue of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett. One activist organisation spokeperson then had the nerve to say "when you attack trans women you attack all trans people and women". So why deface a suffragette statue? They really are up there with flat earthers, conflating that as a result of the supreme court verdict, anyone who isn't trans must be a trans hater." Trans misogyny | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watching the footage, I see a lot of posters saying "trans rights are human rights". Can anybody enlighten me as to what human rights trans folk don't have, or what rights they think have been taken away from them by the Supreme Court's ruling?" When you are involved in an emotive argument, logic and reasoning fly out of the window and you say things that you know aren't necessarily right but you just wished they were. Maybe that's what's happening here. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wouldn't this be part 4? Isn't it pretty much flogging a dead horse at this stage, everyone has said their piece and it's just going round in circles. All this is going to do is create more arguments than actually creating a sensible discussion." I think part 3 was sensibly closed down because someone accidentally and quite innocently touched on something that shouldn't be talked about on an adult website like this. So far the discussion on the court ruling and its wide-ranging implications for society has been remarkably civilized by internet standards and I'm pleasantly surprised. I think these matters are important and although people might get emotional, I think it's healthy to discuss these matters further, especially as news develops of the knock effects of the ruling. Anyone who doesn't want to comment is free to not comment, so I see no harm in letting others try to come to a better understanding of opposing views. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watching the footage, I see a lot of posters saying "trans rights are human rights". Can anybody enlighten me as to what human rights trans folk don't have, or what rights they think have been taken away from them by the Supreme Court's ruling?" The ruling overrides important aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without explicit authority from Parliament. It renders Gender Recognition Certificates effectively meaningless in the context of the Equalities Act 2010. This is particularly painful for those who thought that the enormous difficulties they endured to obtain a GRC was worthwhile. That's just one element but I think there will be many other unintended negative impacts of this ruling as I've hinted at in previous posts. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watching the footage, I see a lot of posters saying "trans rights are human rights". Can anybody enlighten me as to what human rights trans folk don't have, or what rights they think have been taken away from them by the Supreme Court's ruling? The ruling overrides important aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without explicit authority from Parliament. It renders Gender Recognition Certificates effectively meaningless in the context of the Equalities Act 2010. This is particularly painful for those who thought that the enormous difficulties they endured to obtain a GRC was worthwhile. That's just one element but I think there will be many other unintended negative impacts of this ruling as I've hinted at in previous posts." The ruling by the Supreme Court does not overrule any part of the recognition act 2004. It’s in conflict with it ! The European Court Of Human Rights will be our next port of call. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ruling by the Supreme Court does not overrule any part of the recognition act 2004. It’s in conflict with it ! The European Court Of Human Rights will be our next port of call. " I perhaps should have said "attempts to override" but the de facto result at the moment is that it does override it, as we can see from the announcements of those keen to move against trans people. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watching the footage, I see a lot of posters saying "trans rights are human rights". Can anybody enlighten me as to what human rights trans folk don't have, or what rights they think have been taken away from them by the Supreme Court's ruling? The ruling overrides important aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without explicit authority from Parliament. It renders Gender Recognition Certificates effectively meaningless in the context of the Equalities Act 2010. This is particularly painful for those who thought that the enormous difficulties they endured to obtain a GRC was worthwhile. That's just one element but I think there will be many other unintended negative impacts of this ruling as I've hinted at in previous posts." We have a Common Law legal system and judges make law by giving a decision. Not all our law is codified and judge made law is binding, until changed by legislation or by another judgement, on appeal, by a higher court. In this case the judgement came from the Supreme Court, it is binding as of now. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In this case the judgement came from the Supreme Court, it is binding as of now." I agree. The only mechanisms for undoing this ruling are new legislation in Parliament or the ECHR. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right in the UK in recent years that I think the former is very unlikely. The Labour government isn't going to risk any politcal capital on defending trans people. However, the UK ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and was responsible for much of its drafting in response to the horrors of the Holocaust (Winston Churchill was a key figure in the foundation of the convention). So as PinkOasis says this will the next port of call for trans people and those of us who are their allies. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU and as a signatory to the convention the UK is bound by its rulings so any UK citizen can seek protection for their human rights by taking a case to this court. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In this case the judgement came from the Supreme Court, it is binding as of now. I agree. The only mechanisms for undoing this ruling are new legislation in Parliament or the ECHR. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right in the UK in recent years that I think the former is very unlikely. The Labour government isn't going to risk any politcal capital on defending trans people. However, the UK ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and was responsible for much of its drafting in response to the horrors of the Holocaust (Winston Churchill was a key figure in the foundation of the convention). So as PinkOasis says this will the next port of call for trans people and those of us who are their allies. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU and as a signatory to the convention the UK is bound by its rulings so any UK citizen can seek protection for their human rights by taking a case to this court. " Human rights in 1959: stopping genocide. Human rights in 2025: protecting men who want to hang around in women’s toilets and punch women in the face in the boxing ring. And people are surprised that the “human rights” industry has such a bad name. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Human rights in 1959: stopping genocide. Human rights in 2025: protecting men who want to hang around in women’s toilets and punch women in the face in the boxing ring. And people are surprised that the “human rights” industry has such a bad name." Women's toilets are a set of private cubicles with a common area consisting of sinks, soap dispensers, mirrors and hand driers. That's it. There aren't any trans women lurking there waiting to attack women. As for boxing. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly provides for sports organisations to have rules that prevent trans people from having any unfair advantage. I find it completely bizarre that anyone might consider people punching each other in the face to be sport, but that's just me. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A couple of questions. If trans folk had their own private and protected spaces, would they be happy for any gender or sex to fully avail themselves of those spaces? If trans folk had their own sports category/division, would they be happy for any gender or sex to take full part in all events?" This is a great question because I'm not sure that all of them would. I think for some they wouldn't. I think this because of the language and rhetoric used. It seems at times that they don't necessarily want their 'own' rights and protections under the law but rather want to be recognised as being the same as the sex they have transitioned to and therefore have protection from the existing laws. That's why the latest definition is so 'hurtful' to some because it confirms that they are not the same. This is despite the fact that the judgement confirms that trans people rights are still protected. What the definition does is also confirm protection for those biological men and woman. The courts definition protects the rights of all its citizens and that should be the aim of any societies decision makers, that's a fair and just thing to do but this won't be the end of the issue. I believe this because this is not the 'real' issue for a lot of trans people if you look at what they write and say. It's not enough for them to be seen and protected as a 'trans woman', they want to be a woman. And that's what everyone shys away from, skirts around the issue. It's this reason the definition is so abhorrent to many in the trans community. It's the denial of nature and science that's the real issue. Trans woman and trans men must be allowed and protected to live their lives safely as the sex they have chosen that's a right that must be upheld. Their voice must be heard and listened to. But as I said before so must all members of society. Therefore biological woman and biological men should also have the same priviledges afforded to them. Unfortunately we live in a time were distinctions now have to be made, were previously they didn't. So the courts have been placed into a position of providing a definition, confirming trans woman and woman are not the same but that 'everyone' is still protected under the law. Is this the end of the matter? Not be a long shot because I don't think it's the 'real' issue here. So going back to this posters question build all the 'trans' facilities, more loose, changing rooms, accommodate them in sport by creating their own categories, build a whole infrastructure for trans men and woman. See if this solves this issue, my bet is it won't but I could be wrong. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman, I am a woman, with all that girls & women encounter in their lives including sexism in school, sexual assault, men leering out of car windows, sexual abuse, marraige, pregnancy, childbirth, a caring job, juggling career & children, menstruation, a hysterectomy, expectations that I will shut my mouth, be quiet, stroke men's egos, the list goes on and on. So, I am proud to be a woman." And that’s a lived experience that no trans woman is ever going to have! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman..." But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman... But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you." I'm from London and I'm a woman. Thanks though | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a woman decides to become a trans man I kind of get it especially if they only find women attractive and a sexual turn on! But a lot of these trans women claim to be lesbians 🤷♂️surely they would be attracted to men 🤔" I can't say I understand this logic 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman..." "But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you." "I'm from London and I'm a woman. Thanks though" You are a woman, and a cis one. Do you think that being a "cis woman" somehow means that you aren't a "woman" | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman... But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you." But it doesn't, never has. Is only a word invented by someone in the trans community for a PhD paper to differentiate between trans and woman in a way, as admitted by the author, as to not upset trans people or make them feel excluded. So no that poster is not Cis, it only entered the dictionary 15 years ago. Following the description judgement it's even more redundant, she is a biological woman but not Cis. This is one of the reasons trans people find resistance amongst others because they rightly ask for others to respect them and their titles but some refuse to do the same to others. Not Cis just woman, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman... But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you. I'm from London and I'm a woman. Thanks though You are a woman, and a cis one. Do you think that being a "cis woman" somehow means that you aren't a "woman"" Use you're own logic and see how stupid it actually is. So do you feel more of a man because you are a Cis man? Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I object to being called a "cis" woman... But you are a 'cis' woman. Same as you are a 'white' woman, and a 'northern' woman (I'm guessing). The word 'cis' is just an adjective, and it's one that applies to you. I'm from London and I'm a woman. Thanks though You are a woman, and a cis one. Do you think that being a "cis woman" somehow means that you aren't a "woman"" Just read it again and it's ironic how you cannot see the redundancies that are built within your examples. It's laughable. So it's OK to describe someone as white or being a northern with just one word. Is that because you, like the vast majority of people know what you mean when you describe someone as white? And the same principle for Northener, which was funny because she's a Southerner, because again most people have an idea of what being a Northerner or Southerner entails. So you don't feel that either of these two descriptions you yourself used need any more? No 'Darker, Paler, or Pinky White', White is just sufficient. And the same for the regional description, no 'Northern, Mid or Southern Southerner' is required to adequately describe how far below Watford someone actually resides? So if being a White Southerner is acceptable for you, and it seems it is judging by your own words does, why does her sex require more than the word woman? It doesn't, it never has, it's something made up that wasn't required. The need for the 'Trans' prefix is because it does provide a description of the current reality of the person you are describing if they have transitioned into an identity they didn't identify at birth. Woman don't need any such prefix. Their description happens at birth, needs no medical intervention and is widely accepted as being an adequate description for their sex. A white, southern, woman is perfectly good description, what is missing from that statement that requires another adjective to describe these 3 characteristics, of your choosing, to identify them accurately. Yeah, nothing more is needed, it's fine as it is. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term." Right now, woman is a political term 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term. Right now, woman is a political term 💜" Come on its not, itd just the common sense definition that's as old as woman hood itself. It's only political for those tgat don't want to admit that there's a distinction between trans women and women. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The word "cis" has never been needed, or used by rational people. Everyone with a brain knows what a woman and a man are." I'd like to say sorry for misreading your thread the other day and conflating sensuality and sex. I was wrong and you were spot on, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term. Right now, woman is a political term 💜" I can't agree. For the large majority it has the same commonly understood and applied meaning it has for centuries. Cis on the other had is neither widely used or understood and is not part of any shared language. Its use has been almost exclusively promoted by a small minority for political aims (political meaning to influence policy, not party political). | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term. Right now, woman is a political term 💜 I can't agree. For the large majority it has the same commonly understood and applied meaning it has for centuries. Cis on the other had is neither widely used or understood and is not part of any shared language. Its use has been almost exclusively promoted by a small minority for political aims (political meaning to influence policy, not party political)." Language evolves. Obviously you and everyone else arguing about it is aware of the term and what it means. When in conversations where it is relevant, I refer to myself as a cis woman. Such as discussions like these. It isn't an offensive term, it's used to clarify a distinction when not using a descriptor would leave it vague and open to misinterpretation. You can choose not to use it, but you are aware of what it means and it is used by people outside of the minority 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term. Right now, woman is a political term 💜 I can't agree. For the large majority it has the same commonly understood and applied meaning it has for centuries. Cis on the other had is neither widely used or understood and is not part of any shared language. Its use has been almost exclusively promoted by a small minority for political aims (political meaning to influence policy, not party political). Language evolves. Obviously you and everyone else arguing about it is aware of the term and what it means. When in conversations where it is relevant, I refer to myself as a cis woman. Such as discussions like these. It isn't an offensive term, it's used to clarify a distinction when not using a descriptor would leave it vague and open to misinterpretation. You can choose not to use it, but you are aware of what it means and it is used by people outside of the minority 💜" Can I ask why you use it and what does it's use do to the word woman that aids the description of the word woman? Can I ask you what you identified before Cis was use? Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The word "cis" has never been needed, or used by rational people. Everyone with a brain knows what a woman and a man are.I'd like to say sorry for misreading your thread the other day and conflating sensuality and sex. I was wrong and you were spot on, Mrs x" Thank you. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh please, cis is not a neutral adjective, it's a political term. Right now, woman is a political term 💜 I can't agree. For the large majority it has the same commonly understood and applied meaning it has for centuries. Cis on the other had is neither widely used or understood and is not part of any shared language. Its use has been almost exclusively promoted by a small minority for political aims (political meaning to influence policy, not party political). Language evolves. Obviously you and everyone else arguing about it is aware of the term and what it means. When in conversations where it is relevant, I refer to myself as a cis woman. Such as discussions like these. It isn't an offensive term, it's used to clarify a distinction when not using a descriptor would leave it vague and open to misinterpretation. You can choose not to use it, but you are aware of what it means and it is used by people outside of the minority 💜" Just because you don't find the term "cis" offensive, that doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't find the word "tranny" offensive, but many do so I don't use it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's frame this a different way. So let's say Trans wasn't a thing, there was no people who had transitioned and no medical procedures to transition. Would there be a need for a prefix to the term woman then? And before it's use, during the great Womans Rights Campaigns can anyone recall a call from these woman to have a prefix added to the word woman whilst they were burning each others bras? So is this prefix a genuine need, required and wanted by woman or is it pushed because of a Trans agenda? What does everyone think? Mrs x " Definitely pushed by the trans agenda. I had never even heard the word before joining these forums. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The word "cis" has never been needed, or used by rational people. Everyone with a brain knows what a woman and a man are.I'd like to say sorry for misreading your thread the other day and conflating sensuality and sex. I was wrong and you were spot on, Mrs x Thank you." I've done it again, I did the same with one of your posts on this thread and apologise for that but this post was meant for... Preytothefairies.... Because I did the same to her on another thread and I'd like to apologise to her for that. It was about conflating sexuality and sex not sensuality, so sorry once again for that, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just because you don't find the term "cis" offensive, that doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't find the word "tranny" offensive, but many do so I don't use it. "The word fat is considered offensive by some. However, a fat woman is an accurate way to describe a woman who is fat. Calling her a fatty is just rude. Similar to the difference between refering to a trans woman or a tranny. They may be 'the same' to you, but they're not 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's frame this a different way. So let's say Trans wasn't a thing, there was no people who had transitioned and no medical procedures to transition. Would there be a need for a prefix to the term woman then? And before it's use, during the great Womans Rights Campaigns can anyone recall a call from these woman to have a prefix added to the word woman whilst they were burning each others bras? So is this prefix a genuine need, required and wanted by woman or is it pushed because of a Trans agenda? What does everyone think? Mrs x " Back when this was a singular culture island, where everyone had white skin, was there ever a need for use of the term white when referring to someone? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just because you don't find the term "cis" offensive, that doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't find the word "tranny" offensive, but many do so I don't use it.
The word fat is considered offensive by some. However, a fat woman is an accurate way to describe a woman who is fat. Calling her a fatty is just rude. Similar to the difference between refering to a trans woman or a tranny. They may be 'the same' to you, but they're not 💜"Put the word "tranny" into the forum search box. Lots of people with the "TV/TS" next to their profile name are ok with it. Very few aren't. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's frame this a different way. So let's say Trans wasn't a thing, there was no people who had transitioned and no medical procedures to transition. Would there be a need for a prefix to the term woman then? And before it's use, during the great Womans Rights Campaigns can anyone recall a call from these woman to have a prefix added to the word woman whilst they were burning each others bras? So is this prefix a genuine need, required and wanted by woman or is it pushed because of a Trans agenda? What does everyone think? Mrs x Back when this was a singular culture island, where everyone had white skin, was there ever a need for use of the term white when referring to someone?" Think you've not thought my question through properly. You've answered my question exactly how it should be answered. Until there is something that changes, in your example, the introduction of non whites then you are sort on, there's no need to describe anyone as white. So when there were no trans people there was no need to describe anyone as Cis and that's my point. Cis isn't a prefix that's needed by woman, it's only introduced because of Trans people but why? You don't rename an original when something new comes along in anything else comes along and you have to distinguish between the two. Cis is a ridiculous thing and when asked you haven't said why you use it and what you used before it was first introduced 15 years ago? Did you call yourself a Cis girl before that? Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just because you don't find the term "cis" offensive, that doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't find the word "tranny" offensive, but many do so I don't use it.
The word fat is considered offensive by some. However, a fat woman is an accurate way to describe a woman who is fat. Calling her a fatty is just rude. Similar to the difference between refering to a trans woman or a tranny. They may be 'the same' to you, but they're not 💜
Put the word "tranny" into the forum search box. Lots of people with the "TV/TS" next to their profile name are ok with it. Very few aren't. "Let's not get into the vast difference between a trans woman who's is going through the physical and emotional trauma of transitioning, and a cross dresser who thinks it's fun to fuck in a dress. They are not even close to the same thing. That the site doesn't care to define between them has been brought up a great many times by people on the former category as an issue. The latter often actively seek humiliation as part of their kink. Which there is nothing wrong with. But you may as well claim all women want r*ped because you've seen loads on here talk about CNC. On a site primarily about sex, you're going to find a higher density of the people who are into various kinks being more vocal about their kinks. It doesn't mean they're representative of everyone 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you've not thought my question through properly. You've answered my question exactly how it should be answered. Until there is something that changes, in your example, the introduction of non whites then you are sort on, there's no need to describe anyone as white. So when there were no trans people there was no need to describe anyone as Cis and that's my point. Cis isn't a prefix that's needed by woman, it's only introduced because of Trans people but why? You don't rename an original when something new comes along in anything else comes along and you have to distinguish between the two. Cis is a ridiculous thing and when asked you haven't said why you use it and what you used before it was first introduced 15 years ago? Did you call yourself a Cis girl before that? Mrs x" In general, I don't refer to myself as a white woman. I am just a woman. However, in topics specifically about race with people of colour, I do clarify that I am, in fact, a white woman. It's not renaming myself. It's not a deviation from the 'original'. It's a matter of clarity in context. It wasn't a necessary context to consider before we knew people of colour even existed. And in most day to day conversations it is not relevant to mention. But in a discussion of viewpoints about race, the colour of my skin is relevant to my position. In conversations about trans issues, I refer to myself as a cis woman. To clarify I am not just any kind of person you would call a woman, such as my bearded, muscular as fuck, penis having partner, who happens to have been born with a vagina but had that remedied years ago. Obviously we have very different perspectives and experiences on the issue, so to me it makes sense to make sure that the origin of my viewpoint is clear. You may disagree, but if I was making these points from the standpoint of just a 'woman' and I did happen to have a penis between my thighs, I'd feel that was pretty misleading. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
As long as we can keep to a reasoned debate rather than insults we are far better than those riff raff over in the lounge ( turns up nose in a snooty way) | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just because you don't find the term "cis" offensive, that doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't find the word "tranny" offensive, but many do so I don't use it.
The word fat is considered offensive by some. However, a fat woman is an accurate way to describe a woman who is fat. Calling her a fatty is just rude. Similar to the difference between refering to a trans woman or a tranny. They may be 'the same' to you, but they're not 💜
Put the word "tranny" into the forum search box. Lots of people with the "TV/TS" next to their profile name are ok with it. Very few aren't.
Let's not get into the vast difference between a trans woman who's is going through the physical and emotional trauma of transitioning, and a cross dresser who thinks it's fun to fuck in a dress. They are not even close to the same thing.
That the site doesn't care to define between them has been brought up a great many times by people on the former category as an issue.
The latter often actively seek humiliation as part of their kink. Which there is nothing wrong with. But you may as well claim all women want r*ped because you've seen loads on here talk about CNC. On a site primarily about sex, you're going to find a higher density of the people who are into various kinks being more vocal about their kinks. It doesn't mean they're representative of everyone 💜""They are not even close to the same thing.".......I'm sorry, but you don't get to make this decision and neither do you get to decide what is offensive to some and not to others. You obviously haven't looked at any of those threads because many of the people who are ok with "tranny" are what could be termed transgender. Again, not your decision where the boundary is for everyone of them. It's entirely up to the individuals concerned. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you've not thought my question through properly. You've answered my question exactly how it should be answered. Until there is something that changes, in your example, the introduction of non whites then you are sort on, there's no need to describe anyone as white. So when there were no trans people there was no need to describe anyone as Cis and that's my point. Cis isn't a prefix that's needed by woman, it's only introduced because of Trans people but why? You don't rename an original when something new comes along in anything else comes along and you have to distinguish between the two. Cis is a ridiculous thing and when asked you haven't said why you use it and what you used before it was first introduced 15 years ago? Did you call yourself a Cis girl before that? Mrs x In general, I don't refer to myself as a white woman. I am just a woman. However, in topics specifically about race with people of colour, I do clarify that I am, in fact, a white woman. It's not renaming myself. It's not a deviation from the 'original'. It's a matter of clarity in context. It wasn't a necessary context to consider before we knew people of colour even existed. And in most day to day conversations it is not relevant to mention. But in a discussion of viewpoints about race, the colour of my skin is relevant to my position. In conversations about trans issues, I refer to myself as a cis woman. To clarify I am not just any kind of person you would call a woman, such as my bearded, muscular as fuck, penis having partner, who happens to have been born with a vagina but had that remedied years ago. Obviously we have very different perspectives and experiences on the issue, so to me it makes sense to make sure that the origin of my viewpoint is clear. You may disagree, but if I was making these points from the standpoint of just a 'woman' and I did happen to have a penis between my thighs, I'd feel that was pretty misleading." Your problem in your argument in that you use white woman to distinguish yourself from non-white woman is flawed. Because you are white, ots a fact, immutable and undeniable. This is not the same for the word Cis. It's not a physical characteristic. It only applied to chemical bonds and has nothing to do with biology let alone sex. So if the definition of woman is now biological are you going to call yourself a biological woman when comparing yourself to Trans women? Cis actually mean you identified as a sex from birth and still identify as this now you have reached maturity. Nothings changed you were born a woman and remain a woman, what happened to you to change this? Nothing is the answer. It's just paying lip service to the Trans community, the word Cis was chosen to not alienate or upset the Trans community. If the author had used 'real' or 'natural' would you call yourself a real woman or a natural woman in the conversations you have. I doubt it because, although accurate, they could be seen as hurtful. So just use woman. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Put the word "tranny" into the forum search box. Lots of people with the "TV/TS" next to their profile name are ok with it. Very few aren't.
Let's not get into the vast difference between a trans woman who's is going through the physical and emotional trauma of transitioning, and a cross dresser who thinks it's fun to fuck in a dress. They are not even close to the same thing.
That the site doesn't care to define between them has been brought up a great many times by people on the former category as an issue.
The latter often actively seek humiliation as part of their kink. Which there is nothing wrong with. But you may as well claim all women want r*ped because you've seen loads on here talk about CNC. On a site primarily about sex, you're going to find a higher density of the people who are into various kinks being more vocal about their kinks. It doesn't mean they're representative of everyone 💜
"They are not even close to the same thing.".......I'm sorry, but you don't get to make this decision and neither do you get to decide what is offensive to some and not to others. You obviously haven't looked at any of those threads because many of the people who are ok with "tranny" are what could be termed transgender. Again, not your decision where the boundary is for everyone of them. It's entirely up to the individuals concerned."Okay. Putting tranny into the forum search yields 13 threads in the past twelve months, the majority of which are men seeking trannys and getting little to no response, one joke about man flu Vs tranny flu, and one from a married not out TV. Is that like the decision to divide people who identify as women isn't for anyone but each individual woman to decide? 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Put the word "tranny" into the forum search box. Lots of people with the "TV/TS" next to their profile name are ok with it. Very few aren't.
Let's not get into the vast difference between a trans woman who's is going through the physical and emotional trauma of transitioning, and a cross dresser who thinks it's fun to fuck in a dress. They are not even close to the same thing.
That the site doesn't care to define between them has been brought up a great many times by people on the former category as an issue.
The latter often actively seek humiliation as part of their kink. Which there is nothing wrong with. But you may as well claim all women want r*ped because you've seen loads on here talk about CNC. On a site primarily about sex, you're going to find a higher density of the people who are into various kinks being more vocal about their kinks. It doesn't mean they're representative of everyone 💜
"They are not even close to the same thing.".......I'm sorry, but you don't get to make this decision and neither do you get to decide what is offensive to some and not to others. You obviously haven't looked at any of those threads because many of the people who are ok with "tranny" are what could be termed transgender. Again, not your decision where the boundary is for everyone of them. It's entirely up to the individuals concerned.
Okay. Putting tranny into the forum search yields 13 threads in the past twelve months, the majority of which are men seeking trannys and getting little to no response, one joke about man flu Vs tranny flu, and one from a married not out TV.
Is that like the decision to divide people who identify as women isn't for anyone but each individual woman to decide? 💜"But it's not, it's down to the courts now, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You see isn't the politics forum more fun than the boring old lounge
As long as we can keep to a reasoned debate rather than insults we are far better than those riff raff over in the lounge ( turns up nose in a snooty way)"🤣🤣🤣 Mrs c | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your problem in your argument in that you use white woman to distinguish yourself from non-white woman is flawed. Because you are white, ots a fact, immutable and undeniable. This is not the same for the word Cis. It's not a physical characteristic. It only applied to chemical bonds and has nothing to do with biology let alone sex. So if the definition of woman is now biological are you going to call yourself a biological woman when comparing yourself to Trans women? Cis actually mean you identified as a sex from birth and still identify as this now you have reached maturity. Nothings changed you were born a woman and remain a woman, what happened to you to change this? Nothing is the answer. It's just paying lip service to the Trans community, the word Cis was chosen to not alienate or upset the Trans community. If the author had used 'real' or 'natural' would you call yourself a real woman or a natural woman in the conversations you have. I doubt it because, although accurate, they could be seen as hurtful. So just use woman. Mrs x" Is it a fact? Have you seen my skin colour? Or just the way I present myself in pictures where I can change the lighting and filters? Even if the images are true, I could have black heritage and be an albino, I could have vitiligo so extreme that no black remains visible at all. Which, in a conversation about black culture, would be very relevant to clarify. Its also entirely possible to mask my moon tan, hell I only need to spend ten minutes in the sun to be able to look at least mixed, never mind makeup and the rest of it. I can mute my skin colour. I can deny it. But regardless of all that tangential nonsense, when the discussion is about a topic where the colour of my skin is relevant, I am a white woman. Cis is a relevant factor in these conversations. As stated above, my partner is a natural woman, he just happens to have gone through a lot to trade that vagina for a penis. But by your definition of natural he's still a natural woman, because it's immutable or whatever. The fact that I was born as and continue to identify as a woman is relevant. I could type it long form every time, in fact I do in my profile. But when repeating the same thing over and over again I'm going to use the shorthand at least to refer to myself 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your problem in your argument in that you use white woman to distinguish yourself from non-white woman is flawed. Because you are white, ots a fact, immutable and undeniable. This is not the same for the word Cis. It's not a physical characteristic. It only applied to chemical bonds and has nothing to do with biology let alone sex. So if the definition of woman is now biological are you going to call yourself a biological woman when comparing yourself to Trans women? Cis actually mean you identified as a sex from birth and still identify as this now you have reached maturity. Nothings changed you were born a woman and remain a woman, what happened to you to change this? Nothing is the answer. It's just paying lip service to the Trans community, the word Cis was chosen to not alienate or upset the Trans community. If the author had used 'real' or 'natural' would you call yourself a real woman or a natural woman in the conversations you have. I doubt it because, although accurate, they could be seen as hurtful. So just use woman. Mrs x Is it a fact? Have you seen my skin colour? Or just the way I present myself in pictures where I can change the lighting and filters? Even if the images are true, I could have black heritage and be an albino, I could have vitiligo so extreme that no black remains visible at all. Which, in a conversation about black culture, would be very relevant to clarify. Its also entirely possible to mask my moon tan, hell I only need to spend ten minutes in the sun to be able to look at least mixed, never mind makeup and the rest of it. I can mute my skin colour. I can deny it. But regardless of all that tangential nonsense, when the discussion is about a topic where the colour of my skin is relevant, I am a white woman. Cis is a relevant factor in these conversations. As stated above, my partner is a natural woman, he just happens to have gone through a lot to trade that vagina for a penis. But by your definition of natural he's still a natural woman, because it's immutable or whatever. The fact that I was born as and continue to identify as a woman is relevant. I could type it long form every time, in fact I do in my profile. But when repeating the same thing over and over again I'm going to use the shorthand at least to refer to myself 💜" Good because woman is three letters shorter than Cis woman, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good because woman is three letters shorter than Cis woman, Mrs x" I did not realise that you're genuinely offended by the word cis, so I do apologise for referring to us both as cis women when I was referring specifically to women who were born as and continue to be women in another thread. It was not meant as a slight. I will not cease to use the term for myself, I do not consider it offensive to me and feel it brings relative clarity. And, the same as I don't tell people who are happy to be called trannys, fatties or (inappropriate word for black people that I don't care to say myself) that they shouldn't call themselves whatever they feel comfortable with, I don't see why my use of the word to refer to myself should cause you any issue. There is no requirement for you to use it yourself. Same as I don't have to call myself a 6ft blonde white British woman with green eyes and no ongoing health issues, I just occasionally check the relevant box on a form that requests those specifics 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You see isn't the politics forum more fun than the boring old lounge
As long as we can keep to a reasoned debate rather than insults we are far better than those riff raff over in the lounge ( turns up nose in a snooty way)"I think it's been a good, measured debate. The problem with political threads in the Lounge is that so many of the regulars (myself included) know each other, including in real life, so people pile on to support their friends and take sides. In the Politics Section it tends to be people who are actually engaged with the issues. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You see isn't the politics forum more fun than the boring old lounge
As long as we can keep to a reasoned debate rather than insults we are far better than those riff raff over in the lounge ( turns up nose in a snooty way)
I think it's been a good, measured debate. The problem with political threads in the Lounge is that so many of the regulars (myself included) know each other, including in real life, so people pile on to support their friends and take sides. In the Politics Section it tends to be people who are actually engaged with the issues." | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good because woman is three letters shorter than Cis woman, Mrs x I did not realise that you're genuinely offended by the word cis, so I do apologise for referring to us both as cis women when I was referring specifically to women who were born as and continue to be women in another thread. It was not meant as a slight. I will not cease to use the term for myself, I do not consider it offensive to me and feel it brings relative clarity. And, the same as I don't tell people who are happy to be called trannys, fatties or (inappropriate word for black people that I don't care to say myself) that they shouldn't call themselves whatever they feel comfortable with, I don't see why my use of the word to refer to myself should cause you any issue. There is no requirement for you to use it yourself. Same as I don't have to call myself a 6ft blonde white British woman with green eyes and no ongoing health issues, I just occasionally check the relevant box on a form that requests those specifics 💜" I have no problems with anyone calling themselves anything or identifying as anything they want and I would take issue with people who said they do. My only issue with the prefix Cis is that I find it almost forced on people by some members of the Trans community, yet they are the same people who insist I respect their pronouns, labels and descriptors. So theres no need to apologise. I say what I say because of my beliefs. They are based upon what I have seen or read and whilst I will always air of the evidential, scientific side of things I wouldn't dream of being rude to someone and say things that I knew would hurt or upset them because they take a more emotive approach than me. I do however believe I have a right to put my side across in a forum and would fight vigorously for anyone to be able to do the same, even were we are in total opposition on a given matter. It's not personal, it's just the forums. Linguistic shenanigans to amuse bored users, who should know better, and could do something more productive than try to put across a point they believe in, but that has no chance to effect any change on any subject they are discussing. I sometimes find myself a little bit sad about becoming so involved but I then skip off to the Lounge to play Kiss, Fuck or Avoid to cheer myself up and it's all good again. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's great that for the most part people here have been trying to make the case for their position in a civilized fashion and have tried to understand opposing views but we are left with some serious practical problems. I've already described why I think the everday lives of women and girls will be negatively impacted by this court ruling but there are two other serious issues to deal with - how the police and hospitals will deal with trans people from now on. It seems that the police will now ignore GRCs and strip searches will be done by people of opposite genders. Personally I think this is an an affront to the dignity of police officers and a cruel and humiliating thing for trans people to endure. But a much more commonplace issue will be trans women on men's hospital wards and trans men on women's hospital wards. I'd be interested to learn how people who are in support of this ruling think this will improve people's lives. " Strip searches are a relatively small issue, only involving those concealing, or those thought to be concealing weapons or drugs, in the main. So anyone worried about being strip searches, my advice is don't do the crime. Simple. The hospital issue, I'm not sure it's about improving lives but protection of space within the context of the same sex spaces. You already have separation based on sex by having male and female rooms within wards, it's just now going to be based upon biology. If there's no reason for this make all wards and side rooms mixed but I'm sure there are reasons for the current situation regarding separation but I just don't know what they are. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"First of all I don’t think there is a solution to the issue that both sides will find satisfactory. Whether the trans community like it or not, there is a physical difference between someone born biologically female and someone born biologically male who wants to be female. Many of the experiences I have gone through over the years are experiences that are all but impossible for a person born biologically male to comprehend, let alone experience. My first period and having to deal with that as a child, miscarriage, period pains, child birth and feeling that child grow inside you. The list is almost endless. And as you go through life as an adult woman you sometimes have to face some of your deepest fears. Will I still be a woman after a hysterectomy or a double mastectomy? Never mind what other people think of me, what do I think of myself? So when as a society we need a supreme court to actually say what a woman is, we have to wonder how we got here. I’m waiting for all the transphobia accusations and to be called a bigot, it’s seems to be the go to position with some people when they come across people who don’t share your vision of yourself. We seem to have a lot of words for different gender identities, I saw the figure of 70 mentioned recently. And if using one of those terms to describe yourself makes you happy, then great. Happiness is a great goal, one I wish we could all attain. But for so many of us, happiness is a temporary state, often closely followed by emotions we would prefer not to experience, but that is the human condition. I saw the trans rights marches in London today on social media and thought to myself, what has changed. No offence is intended here (although I’m some may be taken) but all the ruling has done is specify something has never needed to be specified before. What is a woman? Ask that question to yourself for a moment and you’ll either, like me, be thinking “well a woman is a woman”. Someone born with certain physical characteristics and body parts. Yes there are some rare cases of intersex people whose sex is ambiguous, but baring those rare exceptions you are either born male or female. Some people live with a feeling that they were born in the wrong body. Let’s stick with m2f trans but it works both ways of course. Some people born male think they are female and some just want to be female. Some of these people will start down the gender reassignment path with many not going the whole way for whatever reason. But some of course do. And some regret starting the process. So, at what point does one of those individuals become female? Can you realistically call yourself a woman if you still have your penis is a common question asked by those outside the trans community. I personally believe that no matter how far you go down that path, you can never change your biological sex. You can look like a woman, act like a woman, dress like a woman, behave like a woman (although this is one that many struggle with), talk like a woman, call yourself a woman and have your friends and family call you a woman, and of course those sympathetic to your situation will also be happy to call you a woman. But it’s all cosmetic. That’s just the realities the science. Carry on and do all that if you think it will make you happy. Unfortunately in a fair few cases it doesn’t work out that way but I guess you don’t know until you try. But go for it, take it as far as you want. I don’t think the toilets issue is a big one. I have my own views which are not important here, but there are more and more GN toilets around and there’s always the disabled. And I agree that for many trans people, using the men’s would be more of an issue than using the women’s. The significant issues are… 1. Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one. 2. Prisons. There is no simple answer to this as they probably won’t be safe in the general population of either, depending on the crime. So either way you’re looking at a lot of solitary. I don’t think this is a substantial issue tho. 3. Changing rooms. I think a bit of common sense can prevail here. I don’t care how “female” you think you are, if you have a cock you should get changed with the men. 4. Sports. There’s physical advantages to those born biologically male in just about every sport. Even pool, snooker and darts where in the face of it there shouldn’t be an advantage, there is. It’s not about what category you look like you should enter, it’s about fairness. You want to be a woman? Well women dont screw each other over, they help each other. There should either be a separate category or you compete with those of the same birth biology if there’s insufficient numbers. And finally, I think the thing that has been forgotten at times when it comes to “rights” is, one groups rights shouldn’t overrule the rights of another group. You can call yourself whatever you want, but you can’t make others use words you want them to. You can’t make me address you as a woman and you shouldn’t be offended if I don’t. This bollocks of toddlers being sent home from nursery for alleged transphobia? They don’t even know what trans is. All they see is a man in a dress and ask why. Surely the appropriate response is to explain that people can wear whatever they want to. Punishing them says more about this idiots running the nursery than it does about the kid. The Mrs" This really is an excellent post. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's great that for the most part people here have been trying to make the case for their position in a civilized fashion and have tried to understand opposing views but we are left with some serious practical problems. I've already described why I think the everday lives of women and girls will be negatively impacted by this court ruling but there are two other serious issues to deal with - how the police and hospitals will deal with trans people from now on. It seems that the police will now ignore GRCs and strip searches will be done by people of opposite genders. Personally I think this is an an affront to the dignity of police officers and a cruel and humiliating thing for trans people to endure. But a much more commonplace issue will be trans women on men's hospital wards and trans men on women's hospital wards. I'd be interested to learn how people who are in support of this ruling think this will improve people's lives. " My friend sent me a link that explains strip searches comprehensively, but of course, I can't post it here. If interested, type "strip search policy uk" into Google and you'll find the liberty human rights uk website. Basically, when a person is detained in a police custody suite, they are asked what gender they prefer to be treated as. Any issues that occur, such as strip searches, will then be carried out with regard to that person's stated gender. Police officers and custody suite officers have to undergo special training for strip and intimate searches. It's mandatory for CSO's because that's part of the job they signed on for. It's not mandatory for uniformed officers, and counted as extra to their normal duties, in the same way as firearms officers, Traffic etc. The site I mentioned above tells all. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"First of all I don’t think there is a solution to the issue that both sides will find satisfactory. Whether the trans community like it or not, there is a physical difference between someone born biologically female and someone born biologically male who wants to be female. Many of the experiences I have gone through over the years are experiences that are all but impossible for a person born biologically male to comprehend, let alone experience. My first period and having to deal with that as a child, miscarriage, period pains, child birth and feeling that child grow inside you. The list is almost endless. And as you go through life as an adult woman you sometimes have to face some of your deepest fears. Will I still be a woman after a hysterectomy or a double mastectomy? Never mind what other people think of me, what do I think of myself? So when as a society we need a supreme court to actually say what a woman is, we have to wonder how we got here. I’m waiting for all the transphobia accusations and to be called a bigot, it’s seems to be the go to position with some people when they come across people who don’t share your vision of yourself. We seem to have a lot of words for different gender identities, I saw the figure of 70 mentioned recently. And if using one of those terms to describe yourself makes you happy, then great. Happiness is a great goal, one I wish we could all attain. But for so many of us, happiness is a temporary state, often closely followed by emotions we would prefer not to experience, but that is the human condition. I saw the trans rights marches in London today on social media and thought to myself, what has changed. No offence is intended here (although I’m some may be taken) but all the ruling has done is specify something has never needed to be specified before. What is a woman? Ask that question to yourself for a moment and you’ll either, like me, be thinking “well a woman is a woman”. Someone born with certain physical characteristics and body parts. Yes there are some rare cases of intersex people whose sex is ambiguous, but baring those rare exceptions you are either born male or female. Some people live with a feeling that they were born in the wrong body. Let’s stick with m2f trans but it works both ways of course. Some people born male think they are female and some just want to be female. Some of these people will start down the gender reassignment path with many not going the whole way for whatever reason. But some of course do. And some regret starting the process. So, at what point does one of those individuals become female? Can you realistically call yourself a woman if you still have your penis is a common question asked by those outside the trans community. I personally believe that no matter how far you go down that path, you can never change your biological sex. You can look like a woman, act like a woman, dress like a woman, behave like a woman (although this is one that many struggle with), talk like a woman, call yourself a woman and have your friends and family call you a woman, and of course those sympathetic to your situation will also be happy to call you a woman. But it’s all cosmetic. That’s just the realities the science. Carry on and do all that if you think it will make you happy. Unfortunately in a fair few cases it doesn’t work out that way but I guess you don’t know until you try. But go for it, take it as far as you want. I don’t think the toilets issue is a big one. I have my own views which are not important here, but there are more and more GN toilets around and there’s always the disabled. And I agree that for many trans people, using the men’s would be more of an issue than using the women’s. The significant issues are… 1. Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one. 2. Prisons. There is no simple answer to this as they probably won’t be safe in the general population of either, depending on the crime. So either way you’re looking at a lot of solitary. I don’t think this is a substantial issue tho. 3. Changing rooms. I think a bit of common sense can prevail here. I don’t care how “female” you think you are, if you have a cock you should get changed with the men. 4. Sports. There’s physical advantages to those born biologically male in just about every sport. Even pool, snooker and darts where in the face of it there shouldn’t be an advantage, there is. It’s not about what category you look like you should enter, it’s about fairness. You want to be a woman? Well women dont screw each other over, they help each other. There should either be a separate category or you compete with those of the same birth biology if there’s insufficient numbers. And finally, I think the thing that has been forgotten at times when it comes to “rights” is, one groups rights shouldn’t overrule the rights of another group. You can call yourself whatever you want, but you can’t make others use words you want them to. You can’t make me address you as a woman and you shouldn’t be offended if I don’t. This bollocks of toddlers being sent home from nursery for alleged transphobia? They don’t even know what trans is. All they see is a man in a dress and ask why. Surely the appropriate response is to explain that people can wear whatever they want to. Punishing them says more about this idiots running the nursery than it does about the kid. The Mrs This really is an excellent post. "Thankyou | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one." There are a very small number of private rooms on hospital wards and they are allocated on medical grounds. I believe infection control is the top priority. So if they were used to isolate trans people instead this would pose a health risk. In extreme circumstances your suggestion could result in someone dying. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My friend sent me a link that explains strip searches comprehensively, but of course, I can't post it here. If interested, type "strip search policy uk" into Google and you'll find the liberty human rights uk website." Thanks for the pointer. The Liberty website is extremely lightweight but it does provide a link to the government's documentation page on PACE and I was able to locate Appendix L which covers the subject at hand. The key section being ... "3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person’s gender is their acquired gender. This means 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 and they must be treated as their acquired gender." However, the above only applies to intimate searches under current regulations. My concern is how the regulations might change following the Supreme Court's ruling. I'm particularly concerned about the news reports a few days ago that British Transport Police have said that GRCs will now be ignored and trans women will be searched by male officers. Have BTP walked back from this? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one. There are a very small number of private rooms on hospital wards and they are allocated on medical grounds. I believe infection control is the top priority. So if they were used to isolate trans people instead this would pose a health risk. In extreme circumstances your suggestion could result in someone dying." If the choice is as you say between a man going on a male ward or someone dying then I’m sure that man would have no problem with it regardless how they present themselves | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My friend sent me a link that explains strip searches comprehensively, but of course, I can't post it here. If interested, type "strip search policy uk" into Google and you'll find the liberty human rights uk website. Thanks for the pointer. The Liberty website is extremely lightweight but it does provide a link to the government's documentation page on PACE and I was able to locate Appendix L which covers the subject at hand. The key section being ... "3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person’s gender is their acquired gender. This means 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 and they must be treated as their acquired gender." However, the above only applies to intimate searches under current regulations. My concern is how the regulations might change following the Supreme Court's ruling. I'm particularly concerned about the news reports a few days ago that British Transport Police have said that GRCs will now be ignored and trans women will be searched by male officers. Have BTP walked back from this?" Not seen anything that says they have. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one. There are a very small number of private rooms on hospital wards and they are allocated on medical grounds. I believe infection control is the top priority. So if they were used to isolate trans people instead this would pose a health risk. In extreme circumstances your suggestion could result in someone dying. If the choice is as you say between a man going on a male ward or someone dying then I’m sure that man would have no problem with it regardless how they present themselves " I'd imagine that if someone is sick enough to be admitted to hospital that requires a bed they would be too unwell to worry about getting their cock out!! Most beds have curtains anyway. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the choice is as you say between a man going on a male ward or someone dying then I’m sure that man would have no problem with it regardless how they present themselves" I was actually thinking about trans men on a women's ward. So women would have someone who looked like a man in the bed next to them. And if they felt uncomfortable with that and wanted them put in a private room as you suggested then it could in extreme circumstances result in a woman dying. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hospital wards. There’s nearly always private rooms and I’d bet trans would take priority to get one. There are a very small number of private rooms on hospital wards and they are allocated on medical grounds. I believe infection control is the top priority. So if they were used to isolate trans people instead this would pose a health risk. In extreme circumstances your suggestion could result in someone dying. If the choice is as you say between a man going on a male ward or someone dying then I’m sure that man would have no problem with it regardless how they present themselves I'd imagine that if someone is sick enough to be admitted to hospital that requires a bed they would be too unwell to worry about getting their cock out!! Most beds have curtains anyway." Yes most cubicles do have curtains but I think you are missing the point, a M2F trans demanding to be on a female only bay within a ward is infringing on the rights on the rest of the occupants in that area who are female. Someone claiming to be something they are not thinks their rights to be whatever they want to be supersedes other people’s rights. Please tell me how you think this is reasonable. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the choice is as you say between a man going on a male ward or someone dying then I’m sure that man would have no problem with it regardless how they present themselves I was actually thinking about trans men on a women's ward. So women would have someone who looked like a man in the bed next to them. And if they felt uncomfortable with that and wanted them put in a private room as you suggested then it could in extreme circumstances result in a woman dying." The numbers of F2M trans are nothing in comparison to the numbers of M2F trans, but let’s follow through your train of thought…. The Supreme Court has ruled what a woman is, it’s reasonable to therefore extrapolate what a man is, let’s take an instance where a man is working as a drag queen and is taken ill this person whilst not necessarily trans is dressed as a woman, conversely you could have a woman doing pantomime dressed as a man what hospital wards should these people go on? How you are dressed at any particular time surely should not supersede your biological sex when it comes to hospital treatment. In my experience it’s the radical M2F trans who are the most vocal in kicking up a fuss, I think in reality 5 woman in a bay with a F2M would be far more sympathetic and agreeable than 5 woman in a bay with a M2F trans, after all woman have a natural affinity with other women and their problems more so than men with their problems. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my experience it’s the radical M2F trans who are the most vocal in kicking up a fuss, I think in reality 5 woman in a bay with a F2M would be far more sympathetic and agreeable than 5 woman in a bay with a M2F trans, after all woman have a natural affinity with other women and their problems more so than men with their problems." I seriously doubt you have any experience of being on a women's ward with someone who looks like a man in the next bed. None of us has any real idea of what such a situation would be like. In legal terms this is all about GRCs and there are lots of trans women who have had full surgery and have been living as women for decades. They don't represent any real threat to women. Last time I looked it up I think there were three trans women with GRCs in prison for sexual assualt. They represent a tiny risk to women yet so many gender critical warriors are mounting their ideological horses to charge into battle without having thought through the many negative consequences of their ideas. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The numbers of F2M trans are nothing in comparison to the numbers of M2F trans, but let’s follow through your train of thought…. The Supreme Court has ruled what a woman is, it’s reasonable to therefore extrapolate what a man is, let’s take an instance where a man is working as a drag queen and is taken ill this person whilst not necessarily trans is dressed as a woman, conversely you could have a woman doing pantomime dressed as a man what hospital wards should these people go on? How you are dressed at any particular time surely should not supersede your biological sex when it comes to hospital treatment. In my experience it’s the radical M2F trans who are the most vocal in kicking up a fuss, I think in reality 5 woman in a bay with a F2M would be far more sympathetic and agreeable than 5 woman in a bay with a M2F trans, after all woman have a natural affinity with other women and their problems more so than men with their problems." The ratios have been reported as evening up over time, numbers prior to 2014 or so showed a notably high prevalence of MTF over a decade ago, FTM numbers have been closing for a while and several countries on several years have reported more MTF than FTM beginning the process for the recording period. "In the UK, data suggests there are more trans people identifying as female (MTF) seeking surgery than male (FTM), but the ratio is decreasing. Specifically, the ratio of MTF to FTM individuals has been observed to change from a 2.6:1 ratio in 1992 to 1.3:1 by 2015, with more FTM individuals presenting for surgery in the final year reported." A drag queen is not necessarily a trans person. Some people do do both. If it's Halloween and you have a minor accident that requires hospital attention while in a skeleton or ghost costume do they take you straight to the morgue? Do alcohol poisoned girls in slutty cat costumes get their stomachs pumped at the vet? No. A costume is not relevant to treatment. The last time I was stuck on an open ward I was much more concerned about the mad bitch constantly muttering death threats at me than I was remotely interested in whether any of the other sick people who weren't being aggressive happened to have ever a penis or not 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In legal terms this is all about GRCs and there are lots of trans women who have had full surgery and have been living as women for decades. They don't represent any real threat to women. Last time I looked it up I think there were three trans women with GRCs in prison for sexual assualt. They represent a tiny risk to women yet so many gender critical warriors are mounting their ideological horses to charge into battle without having thought through the many negative consequences of their ideas. " Absolutely love this, a man telling a woman how they should feel abut the subject. Thank you for deciding for me. Were you jacking your dick as you wrote your misogynistic comments? As my original post said, you have no comprehension of what it means to be a woman. What women experience as they go through life, yet you want to tell me how I should feel about men claiming they do? What planet are you from? The problem has not come from genuine people who go all the way through gender reassignment. The problem has been created by woke ideology where a man can put on a dress and say he’s a woman, go in women’s toilets at a school and public places and women’s changing rooms at family orientated leisure centres etc. and any women that object are branded transphobic bigots. The political movements that have tried to clump these two extremes and everyone in between into one group and call them all “trans” is the problem. You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely love this, a man telling a woman how they should feel abut the subject. Thank you for deciding for me. Were you jacking your dick as you wrote your misogynistic comments? As my original post said, you have no comprehension of what it means to be a woman. What women experience as they go through life, yet you want to tell me how I should feel about men claiming they do? What planet are you from? The problem has not come from genuine people who go all the way through gender reassignment. The problem has been created by woke ideology where a man can put on a dress and say he’s a woman, go in women’s toilets at a school and public places and women’s changing rooms at family orientated leisure centres etc. and any women that object are branded transphobic bigots. The political movements that have tried to clump these two extremes and everyone in between into one group and call them all “trans” is the problem. You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! " No, I'm not a women but I am a human being and I respect people. Your rant does more to prove my point than anything I could write. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! " Eligibility and Requirements for GRC: Age: 18 years or older. Gender Dysphoria: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria (discomfort with one's assigned sex) is required. Living in Acquired Gender: Living in the acquired gender (male or female) for at least two years is necessary. Permanent Intention: A commitment to live permanently in the acquired gender is required. Medical Reports: Two medical reports are typically required, often from medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Statutory Declaration: A legally binding declaration, witnessed by an official, stating the intention to live in the acquired gender for the rest of their life is needed. Supporting Documents: This can include copies of birth certificates, deed polls (if applicable), and other documents proving residency and living in the acquired gender. Doesn't quite read as every man and his dog to me 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In legal terms this is all about GRCs and there are lots of trans women who have had full surgery and have been living as women for decades. They don't represent any real threat to women. Last time I looked it up I think there were three trans women with GRCs in prison for sexual assualt. They represent a tiny risk to women yet so many gender critical warriors are mounting their ideological horses to charge into battle without having thought through the many negative consequences of their ideas. Absolutely love this, a man telling a woman how they should feel abut the subject. Thank you for deciding for me. Were you jacking your dick as you wrote your misogynistic comments? As my original post said, you have no comprehension of what it means to be a woman. What women experience as they go through life, yet you want to tell me how I should feel about men claiming they do? What planet are you from? The problem has not come from genuine people who go all the way through gender reassignment. The problem has been created by woke ideology where a man can put on a dress and say he’s a woman, go in women’s toilets at a school and public places and women’s changing rooms at family orientated leisure centres etc. and any women that object are branded transphobic bigots. The political movements that have tried to clump these two extremes and everyone in between into one group and call them all “trans” is the problem. You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! " Do not make false statements regarding the issuing of GRC’s They not “ handed out like hymn books in a church “ You haven’t got a clue what it takes to get a GRC. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! Eligibility and Requirements for GRC: Age: 18 years or older. Gender Dysphoria: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria (discomfort with one's assigned sex) is required. Living in Acquired Gender: Living in the acquired gender (male or female) for at least two years is necessary. Permanent Intention: A commitment to live permanently in the acquired gender is required. Medical Reports: Two medical reports are typically required, often from medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Statutory Declaration: A legally binding declaration, witnessed by an official, stating the intention to live in the acquired gender for the rest of their life is needed. Supporting Documents: This can include copies of birth certificates, deed polls (if applicable), and other documents proving residency and living in the acquired gender. Doesn't quite read as every man and his dog to me 💜" Thank you . | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely love this, a man telling a woman how they should feel abut the subject. Thank you for deciding for me. Were you jacking your dick as you wrote your misogynistic comments? As my original post said, you have no comprehension of what it means to be a woman. What women experience as they go through life, yet you want to tell me how I should feel about men claiming they do? What planet are you from? The problem has not come from genuine people who go all the way through gender reassignment. The problem has been created by woke ideology where a man can put on a dress and say he’s a woman, go in women’s toilets at a school and public places and women’s changing rooms at family orientated leisure centres etc. and any women that object are branded transphobic bigots. The political movements that have tried to clump these two extremes and everyone in between into one group and call them all “trans” is the problem. You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! No, I'm not a women but I am a human being and I respect people. Your rant does more to prove my point than anything I could write." I actually agree with the previous poster. The process some who truly feel they are born in the wrong body go through to become recognised as a woman, is a long ardous journey that requires total commitment. I know girls who went through mental assessments, hormone treatment and surgery plus living day to day as a women. They themselves have expressed disgust that someone like me could just jump the whole process and not show the same commitment and get a GRC and equal rights. I don't know if am correct, but in my opinion and feedback from other trans people. This militant movement has been hijacked by a small minority and their fanbase with a disregard for what the majority trans and general public feel about this. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In legal terms this is all about GRCs and there are lots of trans women who have had full surgery and have been living as women for decades. They don't represent any real threat to women. Last time I looked it up I think there were three trans women with GRCs in prison for sexual assualt. They represent a tiny risk to women yet so many gender critical warriors are mounting their ideological horses to charge into battle without having thought through the many negative consequences of their ideas. Absolutely love this, a man telling a woman how they should feel abut the subject. Thank you for deciding for me. Were you jacking your dick as you wrote your misogynistic comments? As my original post said, you have no comprehension of what it means to be a woman. What women experience as they go through life, yet you want to tell me how I should feel about men claiming they do? What planet are you from? The problem has not come from genuine people who go all the way through gender reassignment. The problem has been created by woke ideology where a man can put on a dress and say he’s a woman, go in women’s toilets at a school and public places and women’s changing rooms at family orientated leisure centres etc. and any women that object are branded transphobic bigots. The political movements that have tried to clump these two extremes and everyone in between into one group and call them all “trans” is the problem. You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! Do not make false statements regarding the issuing of GRC’s They not “ handed out like hymn books in a church “ You haven’t got a clue what it takes to get a GRC. " I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I was being flippant to demonstrate my point, apologies if you thought I was being literal. Of course they are not handed out like hymn books in a church. But women dont have a penis. So if a man who still has his penis can get a legal document saying he’s a woman, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And now from a legal perspective a GRC is kinda irrelevant. Having one doesn’t make you a woman, but then if you can keep your penis and get one, it never did. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I was being flippant to demonstrate my point, apologies if you thought I was being literal. Of course they are not handed out like hymn books in a church. But women dont have a penis. So if a man who still has his penis can get a legal document saying he’s a woman, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And now from a legal perspective a GRC is kinda irrelevant. Having one doesn’t make you a woman, but then if you can keep your penis and get one, it never did. " Given some of the comments flying around, assuming someone is being flippant with what should be obviously incorrect statements isn't a rational move. Does that mean you think those trans women that have completed their surgeries should be classed as women then? As that seems to be the defining feature for you 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! Eligibility and Requirements for GRC: Age: 18 years or older. Gender Dysphoria: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria (discomfort with one's assigned sex) is required. Living in Acquired Gender: Living in the acquired gender (male or female) for at least two years is necessary. Permanent Intention: A commitment to live permanently in the acquired gender is required. Medical Reports: Two medical reports are typically required, often from medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Statutory Declaration: A legally binding declaration, witnessed by an official, stating the intention to live in the acquired gender for the rest of their life is needed. Supporting Documents: This can include copies of birth certificates, deed polls (if applicable), and other documents proving residency and living in the acquired gender. Doesn't quite read as every man and his dog to me 💜" But there's no mention of completing transition prior to the issue of a GRC, just intention to live as the preferred gender and commitments to do so. I didn't know that I'd have assumed you'd have to have gone all the way before they were issued. Learn something new every day, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned GRC. They are handed out like hymn books in a church. Refuse to issue you one and you’re branded a homophobic, far right nazi. I man that has a penis should be issued a GRC. And that shouldn’t happen anymore now the Supreme Court have ruled. A person who has completed their gender reassignment process should be the only ones able to get one. And if that had been the case, we wouldn’t be here now. But the radicals kept pushing and pushing, well woman have pushed back and won legal protection. As a man you might not like it, but touch. You are not a woman! Eligibility and Requirements for GRC: Age: 18 years or older. Gender Dysphoria: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria (discomfort with one's assigned sex) is required. Living in Acquired Gender: Living in the acquired gender (male or female) for at least two years is necessary. Permanent Intention: A commitment to live permanently in the acquired gender is required. Medical Reports: Two medical reports are typically required, often from medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Statutory Declaration: A legally binding declaration, witnessed by an official, stating the intention to live in the acquired gender for the rest of their life is needed. Supporting Documents: This can include copies of birth certificates, deed polls (if applicable), and other documents proving residency and living in the acquired gender. Doesn't quite read as every man and his dog to me 💜But there's no mention of completing transition prior to the issue of a GRC, just intention to live as the preferred gender and commitments to do so. I didn't know that I'd have assumed you'd have to have gone all the way before they were issued. Learn something new every day, Mrs x" The full physical transition should be the requirement. It was the SNPs self identification in Scotland that have really polarised people. They want no process, just a self declaration and hey presto your magically a women. Total bonkers. It's lost them a lot of votes up here. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But there's no mention of completing transition prior to the issue of a GRC, just intention to live as the preferred gender and commitments to do so. I didn't know that I'd have assumed you'd have to have gone all the way before they were issued. Learn something new every day, Mrs x" My partner got his GRC after the hysterectomy and cauterisation, but before the surgeries to even begin to form the penis. It took ten years between his first surgery (mastectomy) and the final one that made the penis capable of erections. From that very first surgery he was committed to the path, he'd been strapping his tits down for years already to present as more male and the hormone therapy had already sharpened his facial features to be more masculine, and he had already lived his life as a man for a long time before beginning surgery, nevermind the extra years before the certificate. I don't think that recognising when someone is commited to that path is unreasonable, even if it'll still be a few years before the medical transition is completed 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I was being flippant to demonstrate my point, apologies if you thought I was being literal. Of course they are not handed out like hymn books in a church. But women dont have a penis. So if a man who still has his penis can get a legal document saying he’s a woman, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And now from a legal perspective a GRC is kinda irrelevant. Having one doesn’t make you a woman, but then if you can keep your penis and get one, it never did. Given some of the comments flying around, assuming someone is being flippant with what should be obviously incorrect statements isn't a rational move. Does that mean you think those trans women that have completed their surgeries should be classed as women then? As that seems to be the defining feature for you 💜" I don’t think what I think is important in the grand scheme of things. No more or less than any other individual that’s for sure. But no, a man completing gender reassignment doesn’t make them female. It makes them a transgender female. In a dating site, a man shouldn’t have to ask a person claiming to be female, if they have a penis. It should go without saying. But we have a Supreme Court ruling now, we don’t need speculative opinions | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But there's no mention of completing transition prior to the issue of a GRC, just intention to live as the preferred gender and commitments to do so. I didn't know that I'd have assumed you'd have to have gone all the way before they were issued. Learn something new every day, Mrs x My partner got his GRC after the hysterectomy and cauterisation, but before the surgeries to even begin to form the penis. It took ten years between his first surgery (mastectomy) and the final one that made the penis capable of erections. From that very first surgery he was committed to the path, he'd been strapping his tits down for years already to present as more male and the hormone therapy had already sharpened his facial features to be more masculine, and he had already lived his life as a man for a long time before beginning surgery, nevermind the extra years before the certificate. I don't think that recognising when someone is commited to that path is unreasonable, even if it'll still be a few years before the medical transition is completed 💜" But there is a huge potential problem with this though isn't there. Taking your guys personal experience out of it and thinking logically, a certificate can be, and has been, issued before the process is complete. This gives the person a certificate whilst still being in a position to change their mind and not carry on with the process. That cannot be right. I know the process takes a long time but surely it must be complete before any certificate is issued. It's a mess, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The SC decided that a Gender Recognition Certificate doesn’t change a person’s biological sex, it changes their gender status, not their biology. That’s why the Supreme Courts definition is, "man, woman and sex refer exclusively to biological sex"." That makes it messier because it's the individual that chooses their gender apparently. Ones actual called being Gender Fluid, one minute one thing, the next another, nothing to do with sex, so they say. Nightmare, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But there is a huge potential problem with this though isn't there. Taking your guys personal experience out of it and thinking logically, a certificate can be, and has been, issued before the process is complete. This gives the person a certificate whilst still being in a position to change their mind and not carry on with the process. That cannot be right. I know the process takes a long time but surely it must be complete before any certificate is issued. It's a mess, Mrs x" The requirements include multiple medical references, evidence of having lived as the relevant gender for at least two years, and a legally binding commitment to continue living as the relevant gender. It's not like someone can just decide they want to switch and go get a certificate immediately. Sure someone can change their mind and revert to living as their original, which makes the certificate null and void as per the legally binding commitment included in the paperwork. There isn't a requirement for a full surgical transition. Which, I fully understand is a sticking point for some people. Perhaps it would help provide more clarity if that was a requirement. Then again, Buck Angel is 62 now, he didn't believe that the technology existed to make him a penis when he realised he should not have been born a woman and still has most of the original architecture to this day, barring a hysterectomy in his forties for medical rather than elective reasons. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The SC decided that a Gender Recognition Certificate doesn’t change a person’s biological sex, it changes their gender status, not their biology. That’s why the Supreme Courts definition is, "man, woman and sex refer exclusively to biological sex".That makes it messier because it's the individual that chooses their gender apparently. Ones actual called being Gender Fluid, one minute one thing, the next another, nothing to do with sex, so they say. Nightmare, Mrs x" That is correct ref gender, they are not saying that a trans person can't identify as a woman or a man, they can't legally become one. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The SC decided that a Gender Recognition Certificate doesn’t change a person’s biological sex, it changes their gender status, not their biology. That’s why the Supreme Courts definition is, "man, woman and sex refer exclusively to biological sex".That makes it messier because it's the individual that chooses their gender apparently. Ones actual called being Gender Fluid, one minute one thing, the next another, nothing to do with sex, so they say. Nightmare, Mrs x That is correct ref gender, they are not saying that a trans person can't identify as a woman or a man, they can't legally become one. " Exactly! Call yourself whatever you want but you can’t change what you are. Sports is the main issue for us. I think it’s incredibly unfair that men have been competing in the women’s categories. A man boxing in the woman’s category in the Olympics was just a joke I myself have had experience of a man playing against me in a women’s only tournament | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But there is a huge potential problem with this though isn't there. Taking your guys personal experience out of it and thinking logically, a certificate can be, and has been, issued before the process is complete. This gives the person a certificate whilst still being in a position to change their mind and not carry on with the process. That cannot be right. I know the process takes a long time but surely it must be complete before any certificate is issued. It's a mess, Mrs x The requirements include multiple medical references, evidence of having lived as the relevant gender for at least two years, and a legally binding commitment to continue living as the relevant gender. It's not like someone can just decide they want to switch and go get a certificate immediately. Sure someone can change their mind and revert to living as their original, which makes the certificate null and void as per the legally binding commitment included in the paperwork. There isn't a requirement for a full surgical transition. Which, I fully understand is a sticking point for some people. Perhaps it would help provide more clarity if that was a requirement. Then again, Buck Angel is 62 now, he didn't believe that the technology existed to make him a penis when he realised he should not have been born a woman and still has most of the original architecture to this day, barring a hysterectomy in his forties for medical rather than elective reasons." OK for you intentions is the major thing, the intention to live as someone is enough. But surely you can see that being problematic, you even give a nod towards clarity being provided if it was down to full transition. The situation is not helped by the notion that things like certificates are given at the end of the journey not when someone starts or shows lots of intention because they have completed most of the requirements but not all. It doesn't happen elsewhere. Nobody gets a degree like this, you don't get a Marriage Certificate because you went on the Hen do or Stag do, or have kids together, bought a house together. It just comes across as a small minority making demands to get their own way without waiting for the process to be complete, it comes across as being a bit militant and I don't think this has helped the cause for people who want to transition and be accepted for it. Hence the opposition for people with a GRC who have the genitalia they were born with still as opposed to the genitalia they want to identify with. I genuinely didn't know that this was the case. The other thing is that in cases like this woman, not all but large numbers of them, are opposed to sharing woman only spaces with anyone who has a cock. And before everyone jumps on the harm bandwagon, this may be due to concerns with modesty and religion, both of which are as valid points as those concerning safety. It's essential that this is sorted for everyone but it's not going to be easy, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sports is the main issue for us. I think it’s incredibly unfair that men have been competing in the women’s categories. A man boxing in the woman’s category in the Olympics was just a joke " If that's a reference to Imane Khelif, the only confirmed information out there is that she was identified as a female at birth, has been raised as a woman, and only failed tests resulting in disqualification in Russia after she beat the russian champion at the time, meaning that the russian champion retained her official unbeaten streak. She doesn't have the most feminine face or structure. But an athletic build is not usually considered feminine. There's been plenty of speculation about chromosomes and a common thread that has been claimed without any actual evidence is that she's XY and female presenting, but that has never been officially confirmed. She was born a woman by the standards we actually identify sex at birth in practice 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the foundational problem here is that people have different interpretations of gender and sex. Gender critics assert that sex is all that matters. If someone has a penis then their gender is by definition male. Gender and sex are 100% aligned. People who don't agree with gender critical thinking consider that gender is a fluid concept independent of sex and a psychological phenomenon rather than a physical one. Gender and sex are orthogonal. There's a spectrum of opinion on these matters and I suspect those on the fringes will be at it hammer and tongs for decades to come. For pragmatists what matters are the day to day arrangements that people make in regards to gender and sex. There are significant difference between the sexes and these should be taken into account. But if gender is independent of sex (as I believe) then there ought to be ways that gender can be kind of like a layer on top of sex difference. So that we can express our gender in ways that best represent our true selves but without this interfereing with more low-level sex differences. I don't know if any of this makes sense to other people but it seems kind of obvious to me. " The term gender was originally used to replace the term “sex”. Sex being something you do as well as something you are. Its use has been altered in recent years. Here’s a question. Is there a difference between gender and gender identity? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The SC decided that a Gender Recognition Certificate doesn’t change a person’s biological sex, it changes their gender status, not their biology. That’s why the Supreme Courts definition is, "man, woman and sex refer exclusively to biological sex".That makes it messier because it's the individual that chooses their gender apparently. Ones actual called being Gender Fluid, one minute one thing, the next another, nothing to do with sex, so they say. Nightmare, Mrs x That is correct ref gender, they are not saying that a trans person can't identify as a woman or a man, they can't legally become one. " And this is because in reality they aren't one, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the foundational problem here is that people have different interpretations of gender and sex. Gender critics assert that sex is all that matters. If someone has a penis then their gender is by definition male. Gender and sex are 100% aligned. People who don't agree with gender critical thinking consider that gender is a fluid concept independent of sex and a psychological phenomenon rather than a physical one. Gender and sex are orthogonal. There's a spectrum of opinion on these matters and I suspect those on the fringes will be at it hammer and tongs for decades to come. For pragmatists what matters are the day to day arrangements that people make in regards to gender and sex. There are significant difference between the sexes and these should be taken into account. But if gender is independent of sex (as I believe) then there ought to be ways that gender can be kind of like a layer on top of sex difference. So that we can express our gender in ways that best represent our true selves but without this interfereing with more low-level sex differences. I don't know if any of this makes sense to other people but it seems kind of obvious to me. The term gender was originally used to replace the term “sex”. Sex being something you do as well as something you are. Its use has been altered in recent years. Here’s a question. Is there a difference between gender and gender identity? " This is the crucial point. Gender was deliberately conflated with sex for political reasons (to change policy) by dubious actors such as John Money. The actual difference is between biological sex and gender identity. So many of the current issues and disputes derive from ideological and semantic overreach by activists, and the confusion this caused for those who didn't grasp what was going on such as David Lammy, the architect of the GRA. The way forward can only be rooted in biological reality and the common use of language. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a question. Is there a difference between gender and gender identity?" I don't know. Perhaps if you explain what you think the differences are I could attempt to answer your question. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK for you intentions is the major thing, the intention to live as someone is enough. But surely you can see that being problematic, you even give a nod towards clarity being provided if it was down to full transition. The situation is not helped by the notion that things like certificates are given at the end of the journey not when someone starts or shows lots of intention because they have completed most of the requirements but not all. It doesn't happen elsewhere. Nobody gets a degree like this, you don't get a Marriage Certificate because you went on the Hen do or Stag do, or have kids together, bought a house together. It just comes across as a small minority making demands to get their own way without waiting for the process to be complete, it comes across as being a bit militant and I don't think this has helped the cause for people who want to transition and be accepted for it. Hence the opposition for people with a GRC who have the genitalia they were born with still as opposed to the genitalia they want to identify with. I genuinely didn't know that this was the case. The other thing is that in cases like this woman, not all but large numbers of them, are opposed to sharing woman only spaces with anyone who has a cock. And before everyone jumps on the harm bandwagon, this may be due to concerns with modesty and religion, both of which are as valid points as those concerning safety. It's essential that this is sorted for everyone but it's not going to be easy, Mrs x" As I said, the clarity of a completed transition doesn't seem unreasonable, if the standards were changed to those criteria I wouldn't consider it a problem. I may feel personally that sufficient evidence of commitment to the path should be enough, but if actual completion was required, that makes enough sense, so long as sufficient neutral or mixed facilities are provided as standard for those who can't yet have the recognition and do not feel safe in space meant for their original sex. Again I'd point out that the current ruling means my penis having partner would be legally directed to the women's changing rooms as it stands, which just doesn't make sense to me, he both dresses and presents as male and has a dick. Regardless of what he was born with, the majority of women would be at least a little thrown by him walking into a woman's changing room as if he belonged there. Which is why he doesn't, obviously, but FTM do not face anywhere close to the same scrutiny as MTF, part of the reason it's assumed the majority of tran people are MTF is down to more FTM people simply passing as male in day to day life. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the foundational problem here is that people have different interpretations of gender and sex. Gender critics assert that sex is all that matters. If someone has a penis then their gender is by definition male. Gender and sex are 100% aligned. People who don't agree with gender critical thinking consider that gender is a fluid concept independent of sex and a psychological phenomenon rather than a physical one. Gender and sex are orthogonal. There's a spectrum of opinion on these matters and I suspect those on the fringes will be at it hammer and tongs for decades to come. For pragmatists what matters are the day to day arrangements that people make in regards to gender and sex. There are significant difference between the sexes and these should be taken into account. But if gender is independent of sex (as I believe) then there ought to be ways that gender can be kind of like a layer on top of sex difference. So that we can express our gender in ways that best represent our true selves but without this interfereing with more low-level sex differences. I don't know if any of this makes sense to other people but it seems kind of obvious to me. " You love a big word don't you? Makes you feel good inside, well done. If you really want people to understand you could just have said opposite or irrelevant. But you could talk in terms that most people couldn't offer an opinion upon and join in the debate. Which is ironic from a guy who finishes off his post saying '...I don't know if any of this makes sense to other people but it seems kind of obvious to me.', orthogonal pmsl. So you are talking about gender here and how that differs from sex. Why are you doing that? It has nothing to do with the definition ruled upon in the court. The definition of a woman and the sex of a woman is down to biology, gender does not come into it. But if you want to impart your knowledge on gender, gender identity, gender critical thinking or anything else to do with gender start another thread. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You love a big word don't you? Makes you feel good inside, well done. If you really want people to understand you could just have said opposite or irrelevant. " I left education aged 16. Sorry if my vocabulary offends you. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You love a big word don't you? Makes you feel good inside, well done. If you really want people to understand you could just have said opposite or irrelevant. I left education aged 16. Sorry if my vocabulary offends you." It doesn't, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs x, I don't understand why you resort to ad hominem, whoops there I go again with big words. Why do you think that gender is irrelevant to the topic under discussion? " You know why, it's discrete from sex, which is the very essence of what makes a woman a woman. Gender, in the form you want to discuss, is about the social constructs relating to different traditional roles carried out by the different sexes. It has no relevance here, other than when others believe that gender and sex mean the same thing. So just talk about sex, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know why, it's discrete from sex, which is the very essence of what makes a woman a woman. Gender, in the form you want to discuss, is about the social constructs relating to different traditional roles carried out by the different sexes. It has no relevance here, other than when others believe that gender and sex mean the same thing. So just talk about sex, Mrs x" Thank you for returning to polite discourse. So you aren't gender critical then. You see sex and gender as orthogonal as I do. Gender is critical to this debate. Trans people identify themselves more by gender than by sex. If we understand this then we might be able to arrive at some reasonable accommodation where everyone is happy. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know why, it's discrete from sex, which is the very essence of what makes a woman a woman. Gender, in the form you want to discuss, is about the social constructs relating to different traditional roles carried out by the different sexes. It has no relevance here, other than when others believe that gender and sex mean the same thing. So just talk about sex, Mrs x Thank you for returning to polite discourse. So you aren't gender critical then. You see sex and gender as orthogonal as I do. Gender is critical to this debate. Trans people identify themselves more by gender than by sex. If we understand this then we might be able to arrive at some reasonable accommodation where everyone is happy." So how someone 'presents' is more important to Trans people is it? Really? More than sex? These are pretty big, almost world class triple jumps you are performing here. Trans people are literally modifying their bodies to identify as a different sex. If you'd have said Transvestites then you may have a point. They obviously want to perform a different role than the one the normally do but they are not changing sex. So the accomodation you need is to understand that Trans and transitioning is all about sex. Otherwise what's the uproar about the definition of a woman being about biological woman and biological SEX. Think about it, let it sink in a bit and go, spin, spin, spin your little heart out. Can't wait for what you come up with next. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think about it, let it sink in a bit and go, spin, spin, spin your little heart out. Can't wait for what you come up with next." Gender isn't about how one presents. It's a psychological thing. I'm about as masculine a person as you would ever meet and being pretty heavy and trained in martial arts I could beat the sh*t out of most men even though I'm in my mid sixties. But on the gender spectrum I'm non-binary. I have a gentle feminine side that is caring and I find some men attractive. It's not all about whether you have a cock or not. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people seem to be a bit confused about the Supreme Court ruling, so here’s a breakdown. If you were born with a penis, and grow to become an adult, you’re a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to be an adult but you wear a dress and make-up but still have that pesky penis, you’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to become an adult but you wear a dress and make-up and have lopped off that pesky penis, grown extra ass-fat which was removed and shoved into your chest to make fake tits and had a hole drilled up your pelvis to make a frankenfanny – guess what? You’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. A man without a penis, but still a man. In any of the situations described above, you are a man. You will never, ever be a woman. No matter how much you pretend, no matter how much you try to bully others into believing you’re a woman, you’re not. You are a man. If any of the above offends you – tough shit. You’re offended by the truth, and that’s your problem to deal with, not anyone else’s." And in the case of full surgery FTM, they're still women, and should feel free to walk in to female only spaces while looking just like a man and having a pesky penis between their legs by your reasoning? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think about it, let it sink in a bit and go, spin, spin, spin your little heart out. Can't wait for what you come up with next. Gender isn't about how one presents. It's a psychological thing. I'm about as masculine a person as you would ever meet and being pretty heavy and trained in martial arts I could beat the sh*t out of most men even though I'm in my mid sixties. But on the gender spectrum I'm non-binary. I have a gentle feminine side that is caring and I find some men attractive. It's not all about whether you have a cock or not. " OK see post above haha, it's all in the timing pmsl, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people seem to be a bit confused about the Supreme Court ruling, so here’s a breakdown. If you were born with a penis, and grow to become an adult, you’re a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to be an adult but you wear a dress and make-up but still have that pesky penis, you’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to become an adult but you wear a dress and make-up and have lopped off that pesky penis, grown extra ass-fat which was removed and shoved into your chest to make fake tits and had a hole drilled up your pelvis to make a frankenfanny – guess what? You’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. A man without a penis, but still a man. In any of the situations described above, you are a man. You will never, ever be a woman. No matter how much you pretend, no matter how much you try to bully others into believing you’re a woman, you’re not. You are a man. If any of the above offends you – tough shit. You’re offended by the truth, and that’s your problem to deal with, not anyone else’s. And in the case of full surgery FTM, they're still women, and should feel free to walk in to female only spaces while looking just like a man and having a pesky penis between their legs by your reasoning?" That person is still a woman, so yes, of course. It's no different to having a prosthetic leg, or any other body modifications fabricated by medical specialists. It's not a real penis and having it doesn't make the woman a man. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people seem to be a bit confused about the Supreme Court ruling, so here’s a breakdown. If you were born with a penis, and grow to become an adult, you’re a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to be an adult but you wear a dress and make-up but still have that pesky penis, you’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to become an adult but you wear a dress and make-up and have lopped off that pesky penis, grown extra ass-fat which was removed and shoved into your chest to make fake tits and had a hole drilled up your pelvis to make a frankenfanny – guess what? You’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. A man without a penis, but still a man. In any of the situations described above, you are a man. You will never, ever be a woman. No matter how much you pretend, no matter how much you try to bully others into believing you’re a woman, you’re not. You are a man. If any of the above offends you – tough shit. You’re offended by the truth, and that’s your problem to deal with, not anyone else’s. And in the case of full surgery FTM, they're still women, and should feel free to walk in to female only spaces while looking just like a man and having a pesky penis between their legs by your reasoning? That person is still a woman, so yes, of course. It's no different to having a prosthetic leg, or any other body modifications fabricated by medical specialists. It's not a real penis and having it doesn't make the woman a man." Exactly, you could have a third leg grafted on, but that doesn't mean you're from the Isle of Man! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people seem to be a bit confused about the Supreme Court ruling, so here’s a breakdown. If you were born with a penis, and grow to become an adult, you’re a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to be an adult but you wear a dress and make-up but still have that pesky penis, you’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. If you were born with a penis, and have grown to become an adult but you wear a dress and make-up and have lopped off that pesky penis, grown extra ass-fat which was removed and shoved into your chest to make fake tits and had a hole drilled up your pelvis to make a frankenfanny – guess what? You’re still a man. By rationality, logic, biology and the law, you’re a man. A man without a penis, but still a man. In any of the situations described above, you are a man. You will never, ever be a woman. No matter how much you pretend, no matter how much you try to bully others into believing you’re a woman, you’re not. You are a man. If any of the above offends you – tough shit. You’re offended by the truth, and that’s your problem to deal with, not anyone else’s. And in the case of full surgery FTM, they're still women, and should feel free to walk in to female only spaces while looking just like a man and having a pesky penis between their legs by your reasoning? That person is still a woman, so yes, of course. It's no different to having a prosthetic leg, or any other body modifications fabricated by medical specialists. It's not a real penis and having it doesn't make the woman a man. Exactly, you could have a third leg grafted on, but that doesn't mean you're from the Isle of Man!" Or Jake the Peg | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think about it, let it sink in a bit and go, spin, spin, spin your little heart out. Can't wait for what you come up with next. Gender isn't about how one presents. It's a psychological thing. I'm about as masculine a person as you would ever meet and being pretty heavy and trained in martial arts I could beat the sh*t out of most men even though I'm in my mid sixties. But on the gender spectrum I'm non-binary. I have a gentle feminine side that is caring and I find some men attractive. It's not all about whether you have a cock or not. " You should proof read what you post before posting it. You are right gender is not about having a cock or not. It's how you identify, according to the typical, traditional societal constructs for the roles of men and woman. So you could identify with a more traditional feminine role and according to some this would determine your gender. You say you are non-binary, a strange title for a gender identity given that in the theory you like there are literally tons of them but you've chosen one that in its name suggests the possibility that there really is only two but you've chosen a 'third'. So that's gender. Sex is a biological reality. By being born with a cock, you are a man, you cannot change that unlike gender which you can. So gender is how you identify, present yourself. Sex is all about the bits and bobs you were given at birth. So once again gender is not about your cock but your sex is all about it. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So once again gender is not about your cock but your sex is all about it" I totally agree. My sex is male and would be even if my penis was removed. What I'm trying to get across is that gender is an aspect of a human being that is less fundamental than sex but is still very important. Gender is a spectrum and we all have a position on this spectrum and we may move about on it over time. We should recognise this and accommodate for it. It's not as fundamental as biology but humans have complex mental lives and much of our existence isn't just biological. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So once again gender is not about your cock but your sex is all about it I totally agree. My sex is male and would be even if my penis was removed. What I'm trying to get across is that gender is an aspect of a human being that is less fundamental than sex but is still very important. Gender is a spectrum and we all have a position on this spectrum and we may move about on it over time. We should recognise this and accommodate for it. It's not as fundamental as biology but humans have complex mental lives and much of our existence isn't just biological. " What has this got to do with the Definition of a Woman? On a thread about the Definition of a Woman? Nothing is the answer. You obviously want to talk about it, have something on your chest you want to get off about gender so start another thread. This is about the Supreme Courts definition not the complex intricacies that make us human and separate us from the animals. You might as well start talking about the soul next, if you are of a religious persuasion but that again, whilst important to some is not relevant here. It's all to do with biological sex at birth, nothing else. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That person is still a woman, so yes, of course. It's no different to having a prosthetic leg, or any other body modifications fabricated by medical specialists. It's not a real penis and having it doesn't make the woman a man." Your stance on the earlier thread was that trans women pose a threat to women only spaces because they still have the equipment to SA someone. But cool, change tracks when it's not in the current line of sight. As far as the law is currently concerned, you are correct that it does not make him a man in the eyes of the law. But for most people, if they arranged a blind date with a woman, and someone who was obviously masculine with a penis shows up, they're gonna feel pretty mislead. Even if the only quantifier on the blind date request was 'woman' 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously Mrs x you are trying to argue that gender has nothing to do with the definition of a women and must not be discussed?" Where did i say anything shouldn't be discussed. In regards to the definition it has everything to do with biology and sex, read it and then if you want to discuss gender email the Dupreme Court, pointing out whatever it is you want to say about gender and maybe they'll change their minds. It's worth a try because you're not going to change mine. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe gender is a fairly new term in the English language. I feel like it was added to be used in the place of the word “sex” with regard to what sex are you, male or female? I could be wrong but it certainly fits. In which case there are only two genders, male and female. But a gender identity is not the same. It’s a description of yourself that you choose for yourself. Gender is not short for gender identity, they are different. If someone wants to choose an identity that presents them as more feminine, so be it. With coming up to 8.5 billion on the planet, wanting to add more to your description that just male or female seems reasonable. The problem of course is that very few people know what most of the terms mean. Clothing, hair colour and piercings are usually a good indicator tho. For us…. Mr is…. Sex - Male Gender - Male Gender identity - n/a Mrs is… Sex - Female Gender - Female Gender Identity n/a And anyone who calls me CIS will be told they are oppressing me pmsl The Mrs " I hate the Cis thing too, not sure I've said this before but I do, I really do 🤣🤣🤣 Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much more to someones biology than genitalia such as hormone levels ect. To reduce people down to just their genitalia is an interesting view of the world and people." It's all about the biology, nothing more, nothing less, Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did i say anything shouldn't be discussed. In regards to the definition it has everything to do with biology and sex, read it and then if you want to discuss gender email the Dupreme Court, pointing out whatever it is you want to say about gender and maybe they'll change their minds. It's worth a try because you're not going to change mine. Mrs x" I'm not that interested in changing your mind, I'm just expressing my opinions. Gender and sex are fundamental aspects of this topic. The Supreme Court have said that Gender Recognition Certificates no longer have any meaning in the context of EA2010 and that sex is the only factor to be taken into account. I consider the consequences of this ruling to be damaging to society for both trans and non-trans people so I will speak out even though I know my voice has no effect. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did i say anything shouldn't be discussed. In regards to the definition it has everything to do with biology and sex, read it and then if you want to discuss gender email the Dupreme Court, pointing out whatever it is you want to say about gender and maybe they'll change their minds. It's worth a try because you're not going to change mine. Mrs x I'm not that interested in changing your mind, I'm just expressing my opinions. Gender and sex are fundamental aspects of this topic. The Supreme Court have said that Gender Recognition Certificates no longer have any meaning in the context of EA2010 and that sex is the only factor to be taken into account. I consider the consequences of this ruling to be damaging to society for both trans and non-trans people so I will speak out even though I know my voice has no effect. " Carry on but you are wrong on the gender issue as you point out that sex is the only factor for the courts here. You could surely put your obvious determination into something more productive. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That person is still a woman, so yes, of course. It's no different to having a prosthetic leg, or any other body modifications fabricated by medical specialists. It's not a real penis and having it doesn't make the woman a man. Your stance on the earlier thread was that trans women pose a threat to women only spaces because they still have the equipment to SA someone. But cool, change tracks when it's not in the current line of sight. As far as the law is currently concerned, you are correct that it does not make him a man in the eyes of the law. But for most people, if they arranged a blind date with a woman, and someone who was obviously masculine with a penis shows up, they're gonna feel pretty mislead. Even if the only quantifier on the blind date request was 'woman' 💜" You know that the difference between trans men and trans women is not just genitalia, don't you? Trans women are men, and men can pose a threat to women not because of their penises, but because of misogyny, upbringing, testosterone levels, hatred of "real" women, mental health etc - a myriad of reasons that men can have to SA a woman whether the assailant wears or dress or trousers. Their penis is the weapon they use. A trans man is a woman who may have a penis fitted. Woman have far, far fewer of the above traits and are statistically far less likely to assault another woman sexually. Check out the crime stats on this if you want. As for your "blind date" scenario, I'm sure people of all genders and sexes have felt mislead when they first clap eyes on their minger blind date  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive." I'm so glad you find it ridiculous, everyone will no doubt stop offering opinions on such things now you've made your point on here. Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could surely put your obvious determination into something more productive." Probably like you I have a highly productive life outside of fab. I suspect we can both multitask and type at high speed. I enjoy chatting with people especially those who are diametrically opposed to me in their views about politics and philosophy. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive." So what you’re saying is if I use a term when speaking to a trans person that they find offensive, im in the wrong. And if a trans person uses a term I find offensive, I’m in the wrong? Guess what nob-brain, you’re wrong Oh, and before you get offended, it will offend me if you find my terms for offensive people offensive. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. So what you’re saying is if I use a term when speaking to a trans person that they find offensive, im in the wrong. And if a trans person uses a term I find offensive, I’m in the wrong? Guess what nob-brain, you’re wrong Oh, and before you get offended, it will offend me if you find my terms for offensive people offensive. " I stopped taking you seriously at 'what you are saying is'. I find your arguments ridiculous rather than persuasive. And humorous rather than offensive. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. I'm so glad you find it ridiculous, everyone will no doubt stop offering opinions on such things now you've made your point on here. Mrs x" I've no doubt people will continue to offer opinions, you have. Perhaps if you double down on the sarcasm it will become even more convincing. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know that the difference between trans men and trans women is not just genitalia, don't you? Trans women are men, and men can pose a threat to women not because of their penises, but because of misogyny, upbringing, testosterone levels, hatred of "real" women, mental health etc - a myriad of reasons that men can have to SA a woman whether the assailant wears or dress or trousers. Their penis is the weapon they use. A trans man is a woman who may have a penis fitted. Woman have far, far fewer of the above traits and are statistically far less likely to assault another woman sexually. Check out the crime stats on this if you want. As for your "blind date" scenario, I'm sure people of all genders and sexes have felt mislead when they first clap eyes on their minger blind date "Aye, but for most people who are only interested in sex with women the penis is going to be a bit more of a problem than bad teeth would be. Are you suggesting that women never have misogyny, or an upbringing, or testosterone? I know my partner gets a testosterone injection every 12 weeks and you absolutely can tell when it's due and done. I know men who were born men who also have the shot regularly because their body doesn't produce at a regular level. Trans women have hormone therapy to reduce their testosterone levels. There are plenty of women that hate women. And mental health is not specific to men, in fact it's been greatly dismissed for a long time how much mental health does affect men, but if you want to look at statistics you'll see women are far more likely to be diagnosed or in treatment for it. That rapists shouldn't be free to roam in public spaces isn't something that should really need discussion. Not all people born with a penis are that way inclined. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. I'm so glad you find it ridiculous, everyone will no doubt stop offering opinions on such things now you've made your point on here. Mrs x I've no doubt people will continue to offer opinions, you have. Perhaps if you double down on the sarcasm it will become even more convincing. " Perhaps if you stopped trying to convince people Cis wasn't take from the Chemical field and used in a biological field, where it was never used previously, you might have more of an argument. You obviously know it's connection to isomers but what connection does it have to gender identity and sex? As a self proclaimed genius can you offer an explanation as to why the phrase cis woman is more of an accurate description than saying woman? Mrs x | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. So what you’re saying is if I use a term when speaking to a trans person that they find offensive, im in the wrong. And if a trans person uses a term I find offensive, I’m in the wrong? Guess what nob-brain, you’re wrong Oh, and before you get offended, it will offend me if you find my terms for offensive people offensive. " If someone is offended by being called a fat pig, when they're a few pounds over the ideal, that's a valid call. If someone is offended by being called overweight, that's just silly. I could say I'm offended by being called white. I'm sure the people who want to stay on my good side would refrain from calling me white, to my face at least, but it wouldn't stop it from being an accurate descriptor for medical forms or from a stranger 💜 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. So what you’re saying is if I use a term when speaking to a trans person that they find offensive, im in the wrong. And if a trans person uses a term I find offensive, I’m in the wrong? Guess what nob-brain, you’re wrong Oh, and before you get offended, it will offend me if you find my terms for offensive people offensive. I stopped taking you seriously at 'what you are saying is'. I find your arguments ridiculous rather than persuasive. And humorous rather than offensive." Yet another man trying to tell women what they can and can’t think and can’t take it when one stands up to you. You’re pathetic | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’re pathetic" If you keep digging you might eventually arrive in Australia. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’re pathetic If you keep digging you might eventually arrive in Australia." You do know that’s not geologically possible dont you? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. I'm so glad you find it ridiculous, everyone will no doubt stop offering opinions on such things now you've made your point on here. Mrs x I've no doubt people will continue to offer opinions, you have. Perhaps if you double down on the sarcasm it will become even more convincing. Perhaps if you stopped trying to convince people Cis wasn't take from the Chemical field and used in a biological field, where it was never used previously, you might have more of an argument. You obviously know it's connection to isomers but what connection does it have to gender identity and sex? As a self proclaimed genius can you offer an explanation as to why the phrase cis woman is more of an accurate description than saying woman? Mrs x" I haven't proclaimed myself to be a genius. They are Latin prefixes their usage in language is in several disciplines, including molecular biology and DNA, which is relevant to biological sex? The prefix wasn't used in chemistry at one point in history. Scientific knowledge progresses. I have already stated how it relates to gender-identity and referred to the WHO and the UN usage of the term. That is an example of a context where it would be more accurate. I am not trying to convince people. I am expressing my opinion. Actually, I am quoting a global organisation of experts in the relevant fields. You may be trying to convince people that this is wrong? Not that I have an issue with you having a different opinion to me, but you seem to have a problem with it. I have no issue with you having a different opinion to me. I have an issue with strawman arguemnts, ad hominem and abuse. I am not offended by any of it though. I just don't appreciate being misrepresented. And I am not going to be goaded into a mudslinging match feigning as a debate - that's not my kind of politics. And it's that kind of vitriol, which causes me concern for trans-peoples rights. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find these arguments around the use cis and trans prefixes quite ridiculous at times. They aren't new they came from Latin and have been used in Science for a very long time. Cis means on the side of and trans mean opposite of. They are common terms in isomerism. So cis simply means that you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. The WHO defines gender as: Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed' We all have a right to self-determination with regards to our gender-identity protected by UN convention to which we have signed up to and are a founding member of - as an inalienable human right. The government have stated that this law won't change trans-people's rights. That's the area of contention not that the word gender or cis have no meaning or are offensive. I'm so glad you find it ridiculous, everyone will no doubt stop offering opinions on such things now you've made your point on here. Mrs x I've no doubt people will continue to offer opinions, you have. Perhaps if you double down on the sarcasm it will become even more convincing. Perhaps if you stopped trying to convince people Cis wasn't take from the Chemical field and used in a biological field, where it was never used previously, you might have more of an argument. You obviously know it's connection to isomers but what connection does it have to gender identity and sex? As a self proclaimed genius can you offer an explanation as to why the phrase cis woman is more of an accurate description than saying woman? Mrs x I haven't proclaimed myself to be a genius. They are Latin prefixes their usage in language is in several disciplines, including molecular biology and DNA, which is relevant to biological sex? The prefix wasn't used in chemistry at one point in history. Scientific knowledge progresses. I have already stated how it relates to gender-identity and referred to the WHO and the UN usage of the term. That is an example of a context where it would be more accurate. I am not trying to convince people. I am expressing my opinion. Actually, I am quoting a global organisation of experts in the relevant fields. You may be trying to convince people that this is wrong? Not that I have an issue with you having a different opinion to me, but you seem to have a problem with it. I have no issue with you having a different opinion to me. I have an issue with strawman arguemnts, ad hominem and abuse. I am not offended by any of it though. I just don't appreciate being misrepresented. And I am not going to be goaded into a mudslinging match feigning as a debate - that's not my kind of politics. And it's that kind of vitriol, which causes me concern for trans-peoples rights. " A lot of words have roots in Latin or the sciences, but that doesn’t automatically make modern adaptations of those words or phrases legitimate or appropriate, especially when used out of context. This is where the semantics begin and have been the problem that was needed to be solved through the courts ruling. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
