Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it important for a trans man to use a male changing facility? Same question for a trans woman. Genuine question." Exactly the same reasons as cis people — safety, dignity, and privacy. Everyone deserves to change or use the toilet without being stared at, questioned, or harassed. A trans man lives and presents as a man; sending him into the women’s changing room would be disruptive and unsafe for everyone. A trans woman uses the women’s changing room for the same reason any woman does — because that’s where she can change and feel safe. The point isn’t “special access”; it’s access that matches how someone actually lives and is recognised in daily life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it important for a trans man to use a male changing facility? Same question for a trans woman. Genuine question. Exactly the same reasons as cis people — safety, dignity, and privacy. "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them. Among younger trans respondents, 81% said they found entering changing rooms difficult. Source: PinkNews, 27 Oct 2025; Good Law Project, "Abject Terror: 84% of Trans People Feel Britain is Unsafe". Given the recent discussions in my threads about the EHRC guidance and its implications for so-called "single-sex spaces", this data gave me pause. The usual argument for exclusionary rules is that they protect the dignity, safety, and privacy of cisgender women. Yet this new polling — along with several long-term studies — suggests that those same values are being stripped from trans women in the process. The Good Law Project poll also found that 65% of trans adults have faced verbal abuse in public spaces, and 24% have experienced physical violence. (Good Law Project, 27 Oct 2025) By contrast, there is no evidence of any rise in violence toward cisgender women linked to trans inclusion, and large-scale studies show no increase in risk for cis women from inclusive policies. The Williams Institute report Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities (UCLA School of Law, 2025) concluded: "There is no evidence that transgender-inclusive restroom and locker room policies lead to safety or privacy violations for cisgender users." It also found that transgender people themselves face heightened risk of harassment, assault, and denial of access when policies are restrictive. Reference: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Feb 2025. An earlier empirical study, Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations (Hasenbush, Flores & Herman, Williams Institute, 2018), reached the same conclusion after comparing multiple US jurisdictions before and after inclusive laws were enacted: "No increase in criminal incidents or privacy violations in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms." Reference: Williams Institute, 2018. Taken together, these findings point in one direction: the group most at risk in gendered public spaces is trans people, not cis women. And crucially, the source of threat to both groups is the same. Office for National Statistics data show that 97% of recorded sexual offences in England and Wales are committed by men. Reference: ONS, "Sexual offences in England and Wales: overview", 2023. When violence occurs in changing rooms, streets, or homes, the perpetrator profile is overwhelmingly cis male. So when policymakers and commentators justify new restrictions "for women’s safety", we need to ask which women they mean — and whose safety is being reduced to create the illusion of protecting someone else’s. The data do not show a trade-off between one group’s safety and another’s. They show a one-sided cost: trans women’s dignity, safety, and privacy are being sacrificed to protect cis women from a risk that evidence says does not exist. In a society that values freedom and fairness, you do not trade one group’s safety for another’s sense of security. You build systems that protect both — because dignity that depends on someone else’s exclusion is not dignity at all. I know I tend to post on trans issues, but this is current news, and I am as entitled as anyone else to discuss it in the politics forum. The data is real, the policy implications are national, and open debate on evidence should never depend on who it affects most." That's a very high and alarming percentage feeling unsafe. What is the answer that protects trans people and does not impact on men and women in a negative way. Where I live (Milton Keynes) I use the various swimming pools and all but one pool has individual cubicles in the changing room which anyone, regardless of sex can use. Everyone is therefore given privacy. The total space used seems the same as the traditional separate male and female changing rooms though I suspect the overall capacity may be less. Seems to work well though not easy for some places I guess | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them. Among younger trans respondents, 81% said they found entering changing rooms difficult. Source: PinkNews, 27 Oct 2025; Good Law Project, "Abject Terror: 84% of Trans People Feel Britain is Unsafe". Given the recent discussions in my threads about the EHRC guidance and its implications for so-called "single-sex spaces", this data gave me pause. The usual argument for exclusionary rules is that they protect the dignity, safety, and privacy of cisgender women. Yet this new polling — along with several long-term studies — suggests that those same values are being stripped from trans women in the process. The Good Law Project poll also found that 65% of trans adults have faced verbal abuse in public spaces, and 24% have experienced physical violence. (Good Law Project, 27 Oct 2025) By contrast, there is no evidence of any rise in violence toward cisgender women linked to trans inclusion, and large-scale studies show no increase in risk for cis women from inclusive policies. The Williams Institute report Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities (UCLA School of Law, 2025) concluded: "There is no evidence that transgender-inclusive restroom and locker room policies lead to safety or privacy violations for cisgender users." It also found that transgender people themselves face heightened risk of harassment, assault, and denial of access when policies are restrictive. Reference: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Feb 2025. An earlier empirical study, Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations (Hasenbush, Flores & Herman, Williams Institute, 2018), reached the same conclusion after comparing multiple US jurisdictions before and after inclusive laws were enacted: "No increase in criminal incidents or privacy violations in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms." Reference: Williams Institute, 2018. Taken together, these findings point in one direction: the group most at risk in gendered public spaces is trans people, not cis women. And crucially, the source of threat to both groups is the same. Office for National Statistics data show that 97% of recorded sexual offences in England and Wales are committed by men. Reference: ONS, "Sexual offences in England and Wales: overview", 2023. When violence occurs in changing rooms, streets, or homes, the perpetrator profile is overwhelmingly cis male. So when policymakers and commentators justify new restrictions "for women’s safety", we need to ask which women they mean — and whose safety is being reduced to create the illusion of protecting someone else’s. The data do not show a trade-off between one group’s safety and another’s. They show a one-sided cost: trans women’s dignity, safety, and privacy are being sacrificed to protect cis women from a risk that evidence says does not exist. In a society that values freedom and fairness, you do not trade one group’s safety for another’s sense of security. You build systems that protect both — because dignity that depends on someone else’s exclusion is not dignity at all. I know I tend to post on trans issues, but this is current news, and I am as Where I live (Milton Keynes) I use the various swimming pools and all but one pool has individual cubicles in the changing room which anyone, regardless of sex can use. Everyone is therefore given privacy. The total space used seems the same as the traditional separate male and female changing rooms though I suspect the overall capacity may be less. Seems to work well though not easy for some places I guess " This should really be the norm, if possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the fact that 84% of a section of the population feels unsafe is significant." I'm pretty sure if you surveyed women you'd probably find the figure about the same if not higher. Men as well . Fact is we live in troubling times and noone is particularly safe mainly due to the break down in society, antisocial behaviour at epidemic levels, lack of police and police presence due to underfunding. Complete lack of respect and fear of authority and the law. The group that is probably the most scared is the elderly but as we found out during the pandemic people's lack of empathy and care towards the elderly is staggering. So reading stats as pointed out by the OP is hardly a surprise, sadly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the fact that 84% of a section of the population feels unsafe is significant." It is surface level detail, surely more detail is needed to form an opinion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"84% of trans people feel unsafe" Absolutely worthless statistic without knowing how many non-trans people feel unsafe. And someone feeling unsafe doesn't mean that they actually are in any danger "The Good Law Project poll also found that 65% of trans adults have faced verbal abuse in public spaces, and 24% have experienced physical violence. (Good Law Project, 27 Oct 2025)" Again, worthless without knowing the figures for non-trans people. I've certainly received verbal abuse in public spaces, and I'm a white cis male. I've also 'experienced' physical violence, in that I've seen it happen near me. There's no point in having a discussion about this if we don't know whether the numbers being presented actually mean anything, or whether the numbers are unusual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is the difference between "Very" and "fairly" in definition, and what was the % of very and fairly? Does the survey go into the % of trans men and trans men women who make up the 84% The 81% who found changing rooms difficult, what changing rooms are we talking about? Gyms, retailers or other? This detail might shed more light on this issue." You’re right that context matters, so here’s the comparison with available national data. For cis women, YouGov polling shows 26% feel unsafe in general settings and 66% feel unsafe walking home at night (BBC/YouGov, 2022). The Office for National Statistics reports 58% of women aged 16–34 feel unsafe using public transport after dark (ONS, 2022). By contrast, the Good Law Project / YouGov poll found 84% of trans people feel unsafe overall, with 81% of younger trans respondents finding changing rooms difficult. So yes — cis women do feel unsafe, but the proportion is significantly lower. The problem isn’t unique to trans people, but the scale of fear and exclusion is far greater among them. That’s why the issue matters. The point of the thread isn’t to deny anyone’s safety concerns — it’s to question whether removing dignity and access from one group is a fair or effective way to address fear in another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, worthless without knowing the figures for non-trans people. I've certainly received verbal abuse in public spaces, and I'm a white cis male. I've also 'experienced' physical violence, in that I've seen it happen near me. There's no point in having a discussion about this if we don't know whether the numbers being presented actually mean anything, or whether the numbers are unusual." But that’s exactly the point. It isn’t trans people’s fear that’s driving exclusionary policy — it’s the perceived fear of danger from some cis women. The idea that they need protection from trans women has become the emotional engine of the anti-trans movement. So we have to ask: is their fear of danger fundamentally different from trans people’s? Both groups report feeling unsafe. The only statistical difference is who the threat comes from — and it’s the same source in both cases: cis men. The data show no increase in risk to cis women from trans inclusion, but plenty of evidence of risk to trans people from exclusion. So if fear alone is the measure, then trans people’s fear deserves equal weight — yet it’s the only one being ignored. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. " It’s just a descriptor, not a judgement. “Cis” means someone whose gender identity matches their birth sex, the same way “trans” means it doesn’t. If you prefer the Greek, we can use “homogender” instead — same meaning | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It isn’t trans people’s fear that’s driving exclusionary policy — it’s the perceived fear of danger from some cis women. The idea that they need protection from trans women has become the emotional engine of the anti-trans movement." Agreed. And it's trans women's fears that are driving their push to gain access to women only spaces. The idea that they need protection from cis males has become an emotional engine of the trans movement. "The data show no increase in risk to cis women from trans inclusion, but plenty of evidence of risk to trans people from exclusion." You mean that the data you've cherry-picked shows that there is no increase in actual assaults on women from trans inclusion, but plenty of evidence that trans people imagine they will be assaulted if they're not included. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. It’s just a descriptor, not a judgement. “Cis” means someone whose gender identity matches their birth sex, the same way “trans” means it doesn’t. If you prefer the Greek, we can use “homogender” instead — same meaning" You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. It’s just a descriptor, not a judgement. “Cis” means someone whose gender identity matches their birth sex, the same way “trans” means it doesn’t. If you prefer the Greek, we can use “homogender” instead — same meaning" The thing thats really offensive is that as woman we are expected to call those in the Trans community by their preferred descriptors but when a woman says to you they find your descriptors for them to be offensive you just ignore that. Thats very offensive, from a group who find being miscalled anything to be an awful act. Show some respect, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agreed. And it's trans women's fears that are driving their push to gain access to women only spaces. The idea that they need protection from cis males has become an emotional engine of the trans movement. You mean that the data you've cherry-picked shows that there is no increase in actual assaults on women from trans inclusion, but plenty of evidence that trans people imagine they will be assaulted if they're not included." Not in the slightest bit true. Trans women have been using the facilities that align with their gender ever since those facilities have existed — completely legally and without incident. That reality was later enshrined as protected under the Equality Act. And no, I didn’t cherry-pick. I used nationally recognised data from YouGov, the ONS, and the Williams Institute. Those sources document measurable harassment and violence, not imagined risk. The gender-critical movement built its case on feelings and hypotheticals. The trans community didn’t invent fear — we’re responding to it with evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x" I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t call someone straight, we should call them “normal.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thing thats really offensive is that as woman we are expected to call those in the Trans community by their preferred descriptors but when a woman says to you they find your descriptors for them to be offensive you just ignore that. Thats very offensive, from a group who find being miscalled anything to be an awful act. Show some respect, Mrs x" Respect cuts both ways, but facts aren’t opinions. “Cis” isn’t an insult or a label I made up — it’s a neutral scientific term describing people whose gender identity matches their birth sex. Getting offended by a factual descriptor doesn’t make the fact disrespectful — it just means you don’t like what it reveals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t call someone straight, we should call them “normal.” " You are not a woman, you will never be a woman, you are a trans woman or if you want me to use approach I could say you are a false woman but I wont, Be respectful, you cannot expect others to respect you if you dont respect them, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thing thats really offensive is that as woman we are expected to call those in the Trans community by their preferred descriptors but when a woman says to you they find your descriptors for them to be offensive you just ignore that. Thats very offensive, from a group who find being miscalled anything to be an awful act. Show some respect, Mrs x Respect cuts both ways, but facts aren’t opinions. “Cis” isn’t an insult or a label I made up — it’s a neutral scientific term describing people whose gender identity matches their birth sex. Getting offended by a factual descriptor doesn’t make the fact disrespectful — it just means you don’t like what it reveals." You dont get to be the arbitor of offensive. If someone tells you that they dont like something respect that, you dont have to agree with them but you should respect them. It's basic human decency, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. " "Truth" isn't defined by law. The government is not the arbiter of truth. If you believe that law is what makes something true, there are many countries where "You are not a woman" is the "legally protected truth". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. "Truth" isn't defined by law. The government is not the arbiter of truth. If you believe that law is what makes something true, there are many countries where "You are not a woman" is the "legally protected truth"." Currently in this country too, the legal definition from the Supreme Court defines the sex of someone as their 'biological sex' Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t call someone straight, we should call them “normal.” You are not a woman, you will never be a woman, you are a trans woman or if you want me to use approach I could say you are a false woman but I wont, Be respectful, you cannot expect others to respect you if you dont respect them, Mrs x" You’ve now made a direct statement denying my legal and protected gender. That goes beyond disagreement — it’s personal discrimination. Under UK law, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. That means referring to a trans woman as “not a woman” durectly is not a matter of opinion; it’s contrary to legal fact. I’ve kept this discussion factual and respectful. You’re entitled to your beliefs, but not to rewrite biological, psychological, social and legal reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Currently in this country too, the legal definition from the Supreme Court defines the sex of someone as their 'biological sex' Mrs x" We’ve covered this before. The Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland (2) decision applied only to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act. It clarified how that specific law interacts with the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “woman” across UK law, nor did it revoke legal recognition of trans women. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 still states that anyone with a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally recognised as a woman “for all purposes,” and the Equality Act 2010 still protects people proposing to undergo, undergoing, or having undergone gender reassignment. That’s the full legal position. There isn’t anything more to reinterpret. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t call someone straight, we should call them “normal.” You are not a woman, you will never be a woman, you are a trans woman or if you want me to use approach I could say you are a false woman but I wont, Be respectful, you cannot expect others to respect you if you dont respect them, Mrs x You’ve now made a direct statement denying my legal and protected gender. That goes beyond disagreement — it’s personal discrimination. Under UK law, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. That means referring to a trans woman as “not a woman” durectly is not a matter of opinion; it’s contrary to legal fact. I’ve kept this discussion factual and respectful. You’re entitled to your beliefs, but not to rewrite biological, psychological, social and legal reality." I'm not doing anything of the kind. I've literally quoted the legal stance if the Dupreme Court. Take it up with them. I do believe I misunderstood you previously and I apologised profusely, both within the forum and privately to you. Thats respect. Yet when I point out, your disrespect to other posters on the forum, using your own arguments against you, its the worst thing anyone could do to anyone else. Yet you didnt do anything to show respect when you misgendered woman by calling them 'cisgendered' You even doubled down on your behaviour by offering another descriptor rather than just saying sorry. Yet you seem to absolutely hate it when someone offers alternative descriptors to you. Very respectful, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Currently in this country too, the legal definition from the Supreme Court defines the sex of someone as their 'biological sex' Mrs x" We’ve covered this before. The Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland (2) decision applied only to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act. It clarified how that specific law interacts with the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “woman” across UK law, nor did it revoke legal recognition of trans women. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 still states that anyone with a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally recognised as a woman “for all purposes,” and the Equality Act 2010 still protects people proposing to undergo, undergoing, or having undergone gender reassignment. That’s the full legal position. There isn’t anything more to reinterpret. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could just use real woman instead, Mrs x I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t call someone straight, we should call them “normal.” You are not a woman, you will never be a woman, you are a trans woman or if you want me to use approach I could say you are a false woman but I wont, Be respectful, you cannot expect others to respect you if you dont respect them, Mrs x You’ve now made a direct statement denying my legal and protected gender. That goes beyond disagreement — it’s personal discrimination. Under UK law, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. That means referring to a trans woman as “not a woman” durectly is not a matter of opinion; it’s contrary to legal fact. I’ve kept this discussion factual and respectful. You’re entitled to your beliefs, but not to rewrite biological, psychological, social and legal reality.I'm not doing anything of the kind. I've literally quoted the legal stance if the Dupreme Court. Take it up with them. I do believe I misunderstood you previously and I apologised profusely, both within the forum and privately to you. Thats respect. Yet when I point out, your disrespect to other posters on the forum, using your own arguments against you, its the worst thing anyone could do to anyone else. Yet you didnt do anything to show respect when you misgendered woman by calling them 'cisgendered' You even doubled down on your behaviour by offering another descriptor rather than just saying sorry. Yet you seem to absolutely hate it when someone offers alternative descriptors to you. Very respectful, Mrs x" Predictive text as hijacked some of my last post. When I said 'I misunderstood you previously' that should have read 'misgendered'. Hope that makes more sense, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am real, and I am a woman. That’s not opinion — it’s a legally protected truth under UK law. "Truth" isn't defined by law. The government is not the arbiter of truth. If you believe that law is what makes something true, there are many countries where "You are not a woman" is the "legally protected truth"." There are some countries with laws against many people in the LGBTQ community. Where "straight people of a particular religion" are legally protected. In those countries, perhaps an alternative truth exists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Currently in this country too, the legal definition from the Supreme Court defines the sex of someone as their 'biological sex' Mrs x We’ve covered this before. The Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland (2) decision applied only to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act. It clarified how that specific law interacts with the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “woman” across UK law, nor did it revoke legal recognition of trans women. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 still states that anyone with a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally recognised as a woman “for all purposes,” and the Equality Act 2010 still protects people proposing to undergo, undergoing, or having undergone gender reassignment. That’s the full legal position. There isn’t anything more to reinterpret." You mentioned that I shouldn't re-write biological reality, ok let's get real you have a prostate, thats biological reality. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What about the women who feel unsafe being in a toilet alone with a trans woman, what about their safety and dignity ?" Feelings of discomfort are real, but feelings aren’t the same as risk. Everyone’s dignity and safety matter — that includes cis women and trans women. But the evidence simply doesn’t show that trans women present a threat in these spaces, while there’s clear data showing that trans people are at risk when excluded from them. So the question becomes one of fairness and proportionality: is it just to sacrifice the safety and privacy of one group to soothe another’s unevidenced fear? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it important for a trans man to use a male changing facility? Same question for a trans woman. Genuine question. Exactly the same reasons as cis people — safety, dignity, and privacy. Everyone deserves to change or use the toilet without being stared at, questioned, or harassed. A trans man lives and presents as a man; sending him into the women’s changing room would be disruptive and unsafe for everyone. A trans woman uses the women’s changing room for the same reason any woman does — because that’s where she can change and feel safe. The point isn’t “special access”; it’s access that matches how someone actually lives and is recognised in daily life." This older response is not ageing well in this thread... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not doing anything of the kind. I've literally quoted the legal stance if the Dupreme Court. Take it up with them. I do believe I misunderstood you previously and I apologised profusely, both within the forum and privately to you. Thats respect. Yet when I point out, your disrespect to other posters on the forum, using your own arguments against you, its the worst thing anyone could do to anyone else. Yet you didnt do anything to show respect when you misgendered woman by calling them 'cisgendered' You even doubled down on your behaviour by offering another descriptor rather than just saying sorry. Yet you seem to absolutely hate it when someone offers alternative descriptors to you. Very respectful, Mrs x" We’ve already been through the legal point, and nothing in your post changes it. Calling people cis or trans isn’t disrespect — it’s accurate terminology used in medicine, law, and academia. What is disrespectful is repeatedly denying another person’s legal status after it’s been explained. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This older response is not ageing well in this thread..." How so? My argument hasn’t changed at all. That post said trans men and women use the facilities that match their lives for the same reasons cis people do — safety, dignity, and privacy. Everything since has only reinforced that point. The data, the law, and common sense all still say the same thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people never learnt the lesson that you catch more flies with sugar than shit. Sometimes its better to lose a battle when trying to win the war. Just say sorry, even if you dont mean it, move on and dont try and explain why its their fault they are upset. Thats not an apology. Sorry doesn't work with a but. Mrs x" I’ve done nothing that requires an apology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not doing anything of the kind. I've literally quoted the legal stance if the Dupreme Court. Take it up with them. I do believe I misunderstood you previously and I apologised profusely, both within the forum and privately to you. Thats respect. Yet when I point out, your disrespect to other posters on the forum, using your own arguments against you, its the worst thing anyone could do to anyone else. Yet you didnt do anything to show respect when you misgendered woman by calling them 'cisgendered' You even doubled down on your behaviour by offering another descriptor rather than just saying sorry. Yet you seem to absolutely hate it when someone offers alternative descriptors to you. Very respectful, Mrs x We’ve already been through the legal point, and nothing in your post changes it. Calling people cis or trans isn’t disrespect — it’s accurate terminology used in medicine, law, and academia. What is disrespectful is repeatedly denying another person’s legal status after it’s been explained." It's very disrespectful if they dont like the term and find it offensive. I've not denied you anything, legally or otherwise. Ok let's suppose you are correct that I'm a Cis woman and that you are a Trans woman. Does that mean you'll never, ever be a woman because in order to be a Trans woman you and every other Trans woman had to start out life as a man. Whereas every Cis woman started out as a woman and stayed a woman. Not sure you'd like that argument, maybe show some respect and not force your beliefs on others when told not to and then others wont do the same to you, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This older response is not ageing well in this thread... How so? My argument hasn’t changed at all. That post said trans men and women use the facilities that match their lives for the same reasons cis people do — safety, dignity, and privacy. Everything since has only reinforced that point. The data, the law, and common sense all still say the same thing." The law doesn't, not matter how many times you lie about it, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"84% of trans people feel unsafe Absolutely worthless statistic without knowing how many non-trans people feel unsafe. And someone feeling unsafe doesn't mean that they actually are in any danger The Good Law Project poll also found that 65% of trans adults have faced verbal abuse in public spaces, and 24% have experienced physical violence. (Good Law Project, 27 Oct 2025) Again, worthless without knowing the figures for non-trans people. I've certainly received verbal abuse in public spaces, and I'm a white cis male. I've also 'experienced' physical violence, in that I've seen it happen near me. There's no point in having a discussion about this if we don't know whether the numbers being presented actually mean anything, or whether the numbers are unusual." I'm not sensing lots of compassion here. When these data come after research showing 48% of trans people with suicide ideation, we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that such people don't get conditions imposed on them that are undeservably harsh and likely to foster poorer well-being. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very disrespectful if they dont like the term and find it offensive. I've not denied you anything, legally or otherwise. Ok let's suppose you are correct that I'm a Cis woman and that you are a Trans woman. Does that mean you'll never, ever be a woman because in order to be a Trans woman you and every other Trans woman had to start out life as a man. Whereas every Cis woman started out as a woman and stayed a woman. Not sure you'd like that argument, maybe show some respect and not force your beliefs on others when told not to and then others wont do the same to you, Mrs x" That’s a tragically untrue statement, and it can be debunked in many ways. No one is born a woman or born a man; we’re born infants. Adults assign a sex at birth based on visible traits, and sometimes they guess wrong — especially for intersex children, who make up roughly 1–2 % of births. There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy all vary more than most school biology textbooks admit. The more we learn about biology, the clearer it becomes that human diversity isn’t an opinion — it’s a measurable fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The law doesn't, not matter how many times you lie about it, Mrs x" Show me the exact wording from the Supreme Court that supposedly redefined “woman” across all of UK law. It doesn’t exist — because that ruling never happened. The For Women Scotland (2) judgment dealt only with the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, and clarified how that single statute interacts with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. It did not rewrite the definition of “woman” in any other context, and the court explicitly left the broader legal framework untouched. So unless you can quote the line where the Supreme Court says otherwise, that claim collapses on its own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"84% of trans people feel unsafe Absolutely worthless statistic without knowing how many non-trans people feel unsafe. And someone feeling unsafe doesn't mean that they actually are in any danger The Good Law Project poll also found that 65% of trans adults have faced verbal abuse in public spaces, and 24% have experienced physical violence. (Good Law Project, 27 Oct 2025) Again, worthless without knowing the figures for non-trans people. I've certainly received verbal abuse in public spaces, and I'm a white cis male. I've also 'experienced' physical violence, in that I've seen it happen near me. There's no point in having a discussion about this if we don't know whether the numbers being presented actually mean anything, or whether the numbers are unusual. I'm not sensing lots of compassion here. When these data come after research showing 48% of trans people with suicide ideation, we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that such people don't get conditions imposed on them that are undeservably harsh and likely to foster poorer well-being. " I'm sorry but its not about that, at least fir me. I believe that everyone should live how they please and be free from abuse. So I wouldn't normally say anything to a Trans person that was derogatory. In fact I misgendered the poster on here and I immediately apologised for it, on the thread and privately. It was an honest apology which I meant wholeheartedly. But what I cannot abide is when one side says something that is offensive to another and instead of apologising they deflect the blame for being offended back on to them. This is compounded by the person causing the offence to ne outraged when its applied back to them as an example. Hiding behind 'protected characteristics' does not excuse people offending others. Playing the victim card here is a horrible nasty way of absolving themselves of wrong doing, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sensing lots of compassion here. When these data come after research showing 48% of trans people with suicide ideation, we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that such people don't get conditions imposed on them that are undeservably harsh and likely to foster poorer well-being. " Exactly. We can debate numbers all day, but those numbers represent people — neighbours, colleagues, family members — living in fear or despair. The data about suicide ideation and harassment aren’t abstract; they show what happens when policy is driven by prejudice instead of protection. We should be asking how to make life safer for everyone, not who deserves safety less. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What about the women who feel unsafe being in a toilet alone with a trans woman, what about their safety and dignity ? Feelings of discomfort are real, but feelings aren’t the same as risk. Everyone’s dignity and safety matter — that includes cis women and trans women. But the evidence simply doesn’t show that trans women present a threat in these spaces, while there’s clear data showing that trans people are at risk when excluded from them. So the question becomes one of fairness and proportionality: is it just to sacrifice the safety and privacy of one group to soothe another’s unevidenced fear?" So women don't matter, they are less important than trans. I know several women who would be afraid (rightly or wrongly and they definitely not on fab) with a trans woman in a toilet. Fear is indeed real | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry but its not about that, at least fir me. I believe that everyone should live how they please and be free from abuse. So I wouldn't normally say anything to a Trans person that was derogatory. In fact I misgendered the poster on here and I immediately apologised for it, on the thread and privately. It was an honest apology which I meant wholeheartedly. But what I cannot abide is when one side says something that is offensive to another and instead of apologising they deflect the blame for being offended back on to them. This is compounded by the person causing the offence to ne outraged when its applied back to them as an example. Hiding behind 'protected characteristics' does not excuse people offending others. Playing the victim card here is a horrible nasty way of absolving themselves of wrong doing, Mrs x" I’m not saying I am, but it would be just as absurd as being offended by the word cis. Hypothetically, let’s say someone told you they were offended by you signing off with an x. Would you stop doing that — or would you recognise that their being offended doesn’t make the act offensive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So women don't matter, they are less important than trans. I know several women who would be afraid (rightly or wrongly and they definitely not on fab) with a trans woman in a toilet. Fear is indeed real " I literally said everyone’s dignity and safety matter — cis and trans alike. The question isn’t whether fear exists; of course it does. It’s whether policy should be built around who feels afraid or around who’s actually at risk. Fear is a human feeling. Risk is a measurable reality. When evidence shows that one group is suffering real harm and the other faces only a perceived one, fairness means reducing harm — not redistributing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry but its not about that, at least fir me. I believe that everyone should live how they please and be free from abuse. So I wouldn't normally say anything to a Trans person that was derogatory. In fact I misgendered the poster on here and I immediately apologised for it, on the thread and privately. It was an honest apology which I meant wholeheartedly. But what I cannot abide is when one side says something that is offensive to another and instead of apologising they deflect the blame for being offended back on to them. This is compounded by the person causing the offence to ne outraged when its applied back to them as an example. Hiding behind 'protected characteristics' does not excuse people offending others. Playing the victim card here is a horrible nasty way of absolving themselves of wrong doing, Mrs x I’m not saying I am, but it would be just as absurd as being offended by the word cis. Hypothetically, let’s say someone told you they were offended by you signing off with an x. Would you stop doing that — or would you recognise that their being offended doesn’t make the act offensive?" What's absurd about being offended by being called a cis woman? Women have been women for a very long time they don't need more labels to define what they are ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry but its not about that, at least fir me. I believe that everyone should live how they please and be free from abuse. So I wouldn't normally say anything to a Trans person that was derogatory. In fact I misgendered the poster on here and I immediately apologised for it, on the thread and privately. It was an honest apology which I meant wholeheartedly. But what I cannot abide is when one side says something that is offensive to another and instead of apologising they deflect the blame for being offended back on to them. This is compounded by the person causing the offence to ne outraged when its applied back to them as an example. Hiding behind 'protected characteristics' does not excuse people offending others. Playing the victim card here is a horrible nasty way of absolving themselves of wrong doing, Mrs x I’m not saying I am, but it would be just as absurd as being offended by the word cis. Hypothetically, let’s say someone told you they were offended by you signing off with an x. Would you stop doing that — or would you recognise that their being offended doesn’t make the act offensive? What's absurd about being offended by being called a cis woman? Women have been women for a very long time they don't need more labels to define what they are ?" What’s absurd is treating a neutral descriptor as disrespect. “Cis” is simply the counterpart to “trans,” the same way “straight” is the counterpart to “gay.” When straight entered mainstream language, people made the exact same argument — “we don’t need another label; we’ve always just been normal.” Then everyone realised it wasn’t an insult, it was just symmetry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very disrespectful if they dont like the term and find it offensive. I've not denied you anything, legally or otherwise. Ok let's suppose you are correct that I'm a Cis woman and that you are a Trans woman. Does that mean you'll never, ever be a woman because in order to be a Trans woman you and every other Trans woman had to start out life as a man. Whereas every Cis woman started out as a woman and stayed a woman. Not sure you'd like that argument, maybe show some respect and not force your beliefs on others when told not to and then others wont do the same to you, Mrs x That’s a tragically untrue statement, and it can be debunked in many ways. No one is born a woman or born a man; we’re born infants. Adults assign a sex at birth based on visible traits, and sometimes they guess wrong — especially for intersex children, who make up roughly 1–2 % of births. There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy all vary more than most school biology textbooks admit. The more we learn about biology, the clearer it becomes that human diversity isn’t an opinion — it’s a measurable fact." So 7 billion people on this planet are born as male or female, with no issues. Love the way you use linguistic trickery to avoid the obvious man and woman, which is a scientific term too to describe the two animals that make up the human species but we will say male and female, if this term upsets you. Nobody is assigned a sex at birth. You arent given a ticket and told to stand in a queue with your fellow assignees. It's blindingly obvious what you are when you are born, in normal circumstances. As for those intersex children, its a sad thing to be born different but the small percentage means that this is an anomaly. In the same way other birth defects are, and I only use this term as I cannot think of another right now. So even though they may not be identified as male or female it doesn't mean that they are a separate class from a sex viewpoint, there's no third sex. I say this because those born with less than two legs, more than two or no legs at all does not mean humans are not a bipedal animal, because we are. It's just a very sad occurrence in the natural order of things. This is in no way an expression of superiority, everyone alive today is a human deserving equal rights, its just a fact that unexpected things happen during pregnancy but this doesn't change the overall characteristics of our species. So when you say... "There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case."... I agree wholeheartedly with you but there is a single definition of man and woman that fits 7 billion of us, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when you say... "There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case."... I agree wholeheartedly with you but there is a single definition of man and woman that fits 7 billion of us, Mrs x" Welcome to year-9 biology, indeed — where everything looks simple until you study it properly. In human biology, “male” and “female” describe reproductive systems, not whole people. They’re useful categories, but even the most basic genetic research shows they aren’t universal binaries. Intersex traits aren’t “defects”; they’re naturally occurring variations found in every species, including humans. Modern medicine recognises that assigning sex at birth is a classification based on observation — not prophecy about how someone will develop or identify. And if you still think there are only two kinds of people, you might want to ask the hijra, fa’afafine, two-spirit, travesti, and many other communities across the world who have recognised more than “man” and “woman” for centuries. Science stopped treating complex reality as a two-box system decades ago — the rest of us are just catching up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry but its not about that, at least fir me. I believe that everyone should live how they please and be free from abuse. So I wouldn't normally say anything to a Trans person that was derogatory. In fact I misgendered the poster on here and I immediately apologised for it, on the thread and privately. It was an honest apology which I meant wholeheartedly. But what I cannot abide is when one side says something that is offensive to another and instead of apologising they deflect the blame for being offended back on to them. This is compounded by the person causing the offence to ne outraged when its applied back to them as an example. Hiding behind 'protected characteristics' does not excuse people offending others. Playing the victim card here is a horrible nasty way of absolving themselves of wrong doing, Mrs x I’m not saying I am, but it would be just as absurd as being offended by the word cis. Hypothetically, let’s say someone told you they were offended by you signing off with an x. Would you stop doing that — or would you recognise that their being offended doesn’t make the act offensive?" The point is YOU... YOU show obvious offence when called anything you dont like but continue to argue, even now, tgat you can call people something they dont like. It's hypocritical and childish, why are your rights more important than that lady who told you she was offend by the things you were calling her. Jehovahs Witnesses get a hard time because they push their beliefs onto those that dont ask them to. This is the approach you are following, you push and push and push and when someone snaps and pushes back you cower under your "protected characteristics' and cry woe is me. Treat others like you'd like to be treated is a saying for a reason, give it a go and see how you get on, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The point is YOU... YOU show obvious offence when called anything you dont like but continue to argue, even now, tgat you can call people something they dont like. It's hypocritical and childish, why are your rights more important than that lady who told you she was offend by the things you were calling her. Jehovahs Witnesses get a hard time because they push their beliefs onto those that dont ask them to. This is the approach you are following, you push and push and push and when someone snaps and pushes back you cower under your "protected characteristics' and cry woe is me. Treat others like you'd like to be treated is a saying for a reason, give it a go and see how you get on, Mrs x" There’s an important difference between offence and unlawful discrimination. Under UK law, people are allowed to hold and express gender-critical beliefs — for example, believing that sex is immutable. That belief is protected under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act so long as it’s expressed in general terms and not directed at an individual. What crosses the line is when someone aims it at a person — saying “you are not a woman” to a trans woman. That isn’t protected belief; it’s targeted harassment and discrimination related to a protected characteristic (gender reassignment) under the Equality Act 2010. Being called “cis” isn’t hate speech; it’s a neutral descriptor used in medicine and law. Telling a trans woman she’s “not a woman” directly denies her legal status and is recognised in equality and hate-speech law as unacceptable conduct. I haven’t pushed anything on anyone. I’ve responded to misinformation with evidence and to insults with facts. Treating others how I’d like to be treated is exactly why I use accurate language for everyone — not just the people I agree with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” Welcome to year-9 biology, indeed — where everything looks simple until you study it properly. " Ther are two human sexes, male and female they are not "assigned" at birth. You can change your appearance but your still a man or a woman. No disrespect to trans women My statement still stands women should not be forced into sharing toilets with trans women against their will and labelling them anything other than "women" IS offensive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ther are two human sexes, male and female they are not "assigned" at birth. You can change your appearance but your still a man or a woman. No disrespect to trans women My statement still stands women should not be forced into sharing toilets with trans women against their will and labelling them anything other than "women" IS offensive " You’re entitled to hold that belief — UK law explicitly protects gender-critical views as a philosophical belief. But legally and scientifically, that belief isn’t true. Across biology, psychology, neurology, endocrinology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and other fields, sex and gender are understood as complex systems with natural variation, not a strict binary. And in UK law, trans women are recognised and protected as women under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. Beliefs are protected; actions based on them aren’t. Saying “women should not have to share toilets with trans women” isn’t just a belief — it’s an attempt to deny equal access to a protected group. That’s where it stops being opinion and becomes discrimination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when you say... "There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case."... I agree wholeheartedly with you but there is a single definition of man and woman that fits 7 billion of us, Mrs x Welcome to year-9 biology, indeed — where everything looks simple until you study it properly. In human biology, “male” and “female” describe reproductive systems, not whole people. They’re useful categories, but even the most basic genetic research shows they aren’t universal binaries. Intersex traits aren’t “defects”; they’re naturally occurring variations found in every species, including humans. Modern medicine recognises that assigning sex at birth is a classification based on observation — not prophecy about how someone will develop or identify. And if you still think there are only two kinds of people, you might want to ask the hijra, fa’afafine, two-spirit, travesti, and many other communities across the world who have recognised more than “man” and “woman” for centuries. Science stopped treating complex reality as a two-box system decades ago — the rest of us are just catching up." The ancient Greeks 'recognised' God's could transform into other animals and mate with humans, Romanians believe people can live as the undead and transform into bats, Romans believed twins could be brought up and suckled by a She wolf. Werewolves, Wendigos, Banshees, Leprechaun do I need to go on? Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it true. Development is not prophecy but as you correctly state based in observation, tunkle or no tinkle is all it takes. Nobody is looking into the future, sex is determined, normally, at the moment of birth. What do you think happens at birth? I wasn't aware at my own birth but after having 4 kids of my own and having the absolute privilege of being at 3 of my grandkids births I can tell you that the sex of each child was determined instantaneously. No runes, tarot cards or horoscopes were harmed in the process of these determinations, haha can't believe ai feel I have to comment on such rubbish. All birth defects are naturally occurring because birth is a natural process. What do you believe they are, man made, artifical. Not sure if you even believe what you say at times. So 7 billion people on the planet are correctly sexed, thats an awful phrase, as you rightly say by observation with no further tests required. The complex bit is in the tiny percentage were this doesn't happen but like I said thats an anomaly not the norm, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ther are two human sexes, male and female they are not "assigned" at birth. You can change your appearance but your still a man or a woman. No disrespect to trans women My statement still stands women should not be forced into sharing toilets with trans women against their will and labelling them anything other than "women" IS offensive You’re entitled to hold that belief — UK law explicitly protects gender-critical views as a philosophical belief. But legally and scientifically, that belief isn’t true. Across biology, psychology, neurology, endocrinology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and other fields, sex and gender are understood as complex systems with natural variation, not a strict binary. And in UK law, trans women are recognised and protected as women under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. Beliefs are protected; actions based on them aren’t. Saying “women should not have to share toilets with trans women” isn’t just a belief — it’s an attempt to deny equal access to a protected group. That’s where it stops being opinion and becomes discrimination." Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. If the law is wrong it's wrong You are aware of the cases where men have dressed as women to access toilets and spy on women facilitated by an abysmal lack of respect for women ? How do women know who or what is in the next cubicle | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ancient Greeks 'recognised' God's could transform into other animals and mate with humans, Romanians believe people can live as the undead and transform into bats, Romans believed twins could be brought up and suckled by a She wolf. Werewolves, Wendigos, Banshees, Leprechaun do I need to go on? Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it true. Development is not prophecy but as you correctly state based in observation, tunkle or no tinkle is all it takes. Nobody is looking into the future, sex is determined, normally, at the moment of birth. What do you think happens at birth? I wasn't aware at my own birth but after having 4 kids of my own and having the absolute privilege of being at 3 of my grandkids births I can tell you that the sex of each child was determined instantaneously. No runes, tarot cards or horoscopes were harmed in the process of these determinations, haha can't believe ai feel I have to comment on such rubbish. All birth defects are naturally occurring because birth is a natural process. What do you believe they are, man made, artifical. Not sure if you even believe what you say at times. So 7 billion people on the planet are correctly sexed, thats an awful phrase, as you rightly say by observation with no further tests required. The complex bit is in the tiny percentage were this doesn't happen but like I said thats an anomaly not the norm, Mrs x" Every group I mentioned — hijra, fa’afafine, two-spirit, travesti — exists in the world today. These aren’t myths; they’re living communities recognised within their own cultures and, in several cases, by law. India legally recognises hijra as a third gender. Samoa recognises fa’afafine. Canada and the U.S. have both acknowledged two-spirit identities within Indigenous nations. You said it yourself: belief doesn’t make something true. So when belief clashes with evidence, I’ll side with the evidence. Across biology, psychology, neurology, endocrinology, and anthropology, the consensus is clear: sex and gender aren’t strict binaries, and trans identities are a naturally occurring part of human variation. It’s fine to hold personal beliefs — but science describes the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. If the law is wrong it's wrong You are aware of the cases where men have dressed as women to access toilets and spy on women facilitated by an abysmal lack of respect for women ? How do women know who or what is in the next cubicle " Are you suggesting I should be endangered and have my safety and dignity reduced because of what a cis man might do? Predators exist — that’s true — but they’re overwhelmingly cisgender men, and every study on inclusive facilities has found no increase in risk to cis women from trans inclusion. None. The laws against voyeurism and assault already apply to everyone, and no “self-ID” loophole has ever been shown to cause these crimes. So the question isn’t whether we take women’s safety seriously; it’s whether we punish an entire group of women for hypothetical crimes committed by men pretending to be them. That’s not protection — that’s collective blame. Who’s in the next cubicle? Whoever is there. The useful policy question is: how do we stop people from abusing that privacy — not which label we slap on the victim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The point is YOU... YOU show obvious offence when called anything you dont like but continue to argue, even now, tgat you can call people something they dont like. It's hypocritical and childish, why are your rights more important than that lady who told you she was offend by the things you were calling her. Jehovahs Witnesses get a hard time because they push their beliefs onto those that dont ask them to. This is the approach you are following, you push and push and push and when someone snaps and pushes back you cower under your "protected characteristics' and cry woe is me. Treat others like you'd like to be treated is a saying for a reason, give it a go and see how you get on, Mrs x There’s an important difference between offence and unlawful discrimination. Under UK law, people are allowed to hold and express gender-critical beliefs — for example, believing that sex is immutable. That belief is protected under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act so long as it’s expressed in general terms and not directed at an individual. What crosses the line is when someone aims it at a person — saying “you are not a woman” to a trans woman. That isn’t protected belief; it’s targeted harassment and discrimination related to a protected characteristic (gender reassignment) under the Equality Act 2010. Being called “cis” isn’t hate speech; it’s a neutral descriptor used in medicine and law. Telling a trans woman she’s “not a woman” directly denies her legal status and is recognised in equality and hate-speech law as unacceptable conduct. I haven’t pushed anything on anyone. I’ve responded to misinformation with evidence and to insults with facts. Treating others how I’d like to be treated is exactly why I use accurate language for everyone — not just the people I agree with." I think you need to update yourself on whether Cis is offensive. It's use on X, whilst not official policy, is frowned upon and users have been seeing messages warning against its use. Musk himself posted "Cis is a heterophobic word. Shame on anyone who uses it." And nobody is discriminating against you, they are just shocked you feel you can offend others and then cry when others do they same to you. Yours is a premeditated strike whilst others is retaliatory. It's a form of baiting or trolling g, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ancient Greeks 'recognised' God's could transform into other animals and mate with humans, Romanians believe people can live as the undead and transform into bats, Romans believed twins could be brought up and suckled by a She wolf. Werewolves, Wendigos, Banshees, Leprechaun do I need to go on? Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it true. Development is not prophecy but as you correctly state based in observation, tunkle or no tinkle is all it takes. Nobody is looking into the future, sex is determined, normally, at the moment of birth. What do you think happens at birth? I wasn't aware at my own birth but after having 4 kids of my own and having the absolute privilege of being at 3 of my grandkids births I can tell you that the sex of each child was determined instantaneously. No runes, tarot cards or horoscopes were harmed in the process of these determinations, haha can't believe ai feel I have to comment on such rubbish. All birth defects are naturally occurring because birth is a natural process. What do you believe they are, man made, artifical. Not sure if you even believe what you say at times. So 7 billion people on the planet are correctly sexed, thats an awful phrase, as you rightly say by observation with no further tests required. The complex bit is in the tiny percentage were this doesn't happen but like I said thats an anomaly not the norm, Mrs x Every group I mentioned — hijra, fa’afafine, two-spirit, travesti — exists in the world today. These aren’t myths; they’re living communities recognised within their own cultures and, in several cases, by law. India legally recognises hijra as a third gender. Samoa recognises fa’afafine. Canada and the U.S. have both acknowledged two-spirit identities within Indigenous nations. You said it yourself: belief doesn’t make something true. So when belief clashes with evidence, I’ll side with the evidence. Across biology, psychology, neurology, endocrinology, and anthropology, the consensus is clear: sex and gender aren’t strict binaries, and trans identities are a naturally occurring part of human variation. It’s fine to hold personal beliefs — but science describes the world as it is, not as we wish it to be." You never answer this but you have a prostate, that's biological, scientific that is how the world is not how you want it to be. Explain that, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...But legally and scientifically, that belief isn’t true" Oh, dear. You cannot legislate truth. There's a word for that kind of government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never answer this but you have a prostate, that's biological, scientific that is how the world is not how you want it to be. Explain that, Mrs x" The prostate is illegally occupying the uterine area. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you need to update yourself on whether Cis is offensive. It's use on X, whilst not official policy, is frowned upon and users have been seeing messages warning against its use. Musk himself posted "Cis is a heterophobic word. Shame on anyone who uses it." And nobody is discriminating against you, they are just shocked you feel you can offend others and then cry when others do they same to you. Yours is a premeditated strike whilst others is retaliatory. It's a form of baiting or trolling g, Mrs x" I’m sorry, but did you just quote Elon Musk — the world’s most divorced man and a self-declared opponent of anything “woke” — as your linguistic authority? X (formerly Twitter) isn’t a legal or academic body; it’s a social-media platform run by someone with a political agenda. And it’s not as though Musk is a neutral voice. His ex-wife has criticised his behaviour publicly, and his own daughter cut ties with him because of his views on trans people. He’s not offering science — he’s settling scores. “Cis” is used in every major scientific, medical, and legal context — from the NHS and British Psychological Society to the UN and peer-reviewed research. Language isn’t defined by billionaires with grudges; it’s defined by evidence and shared understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ancient Greeks 'recognised' God's could transform into other animals and mate with humans, Romanians believe people can live as the undead and transform into bats, Romans believed twins could be brought up and suckled by a She wolf. Werewolves, Wendigos, Banshees, Leprechaun do I need to go on? Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it true. Development is not prophecy but as you correctly state based in observation, tunkle or no tinkle is all it takes. Nobody is looking into the future, sex is determined, normally, at the moment of birth. What do you think happens at birth? I wasn't aware at my own birth but after having 4 kids of my own and having the absolute privilege of being at 3 of my grandkids births I can tell you that the sex of each child was determined instantaneously. No runes, tarot cards or horoscopes were harmed in the process of these determinations, haha can't believe ai feel I have to comment on such rubbish. All birth defects are naturally occurring because birth is a natural process. What do you believe they are, man made, artifical. Not sure if you even believe what you say at times. So 7 billion people on the planet are correctly sexed, thats an awful phrase, as you rightly say by observation with no further tests required. The complex bit is in the tiny percentage were this doesn't happen but like I said thats an anomaly not the norm, Mrs x Every group I mentioned — hijra, fa’afafine, two-spirit, travesti — exists in the world today. These aren’t myths; they’re living communities recognised within their own cultures and, in several cases, by law. India legally recognises hijra as a third gender. Samoa recognises fa’afafine. Canada and the U.S. have both acknowledged two-spirit identities within Indigenous nations. You said it yourself: belief doesn’t make something true. So when belief clashes with evidence, I’ll side with the evidence. Across biology, psychology, neurology, endocrinology, and anthropology, the consensus is clear: sex and gender aren’t strict binaries, and trans identities are a naturally occurring part of human variation. It’s fine to hold personal beliefs — but science describes the world as it is, not as we wish it to be." There are plenty of things that are held as true by belief. Look at religion in this belief system, men who can fly, live hundreds of years, gods with lots of limbs, gods made up from elephants and man, flying horses do you believe any of that, where is tge scientific proof yet billions believe in these things and they are still in existence nowadays. You mention endocrinology. They look after things, one of which are sex hormones. So there's testosterone and oestrogen, male and female hormones. So whats the trans hormone then? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never answer this but you have a prostate, that's biological, scientific that is how the world is not how you want it to be. Explain that, Mrs x" Anatomy isn’t gender. Bodies have organs; people have identities. The presence or absence of a prostate doesn’t determine whether someone is a man or a woman any more than the presence of ovaries decides personality, behaviour, or social role. If anatomy alone defined gender, hysterectomies would erase womanhood and prostate cancer would make men something else — yet no one argues that. Biology describes parts; gender describes people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you need to update yourself on whether Cis is offensive. It's use on X, whilst not official policy, is frowned upon and users have been seeing messages warning against its use. Musk himself posted "Cis is a heterophobic word. Shame on anyone who uses it." And nobody is discriminating against you, they are just shocked you feel you can offend others and then cry when others do they same to you. Yours is a premeditated strike whilst others is retaliatory. It's a form of baiting or trolling g, Mrs x I’m sorry, but did you just quote Elon Musk — the world’s most divorced man and a self-declared opponent of anything “woke” — as your linguistic authority? X (formerly Twitter) isn’t a legal or academic body; it’s a social-media platform run by someone with a political agenda. And it’s not as though Musk is a neutral voice. His ex-wife has criticised his behaviour publicly, and his own daughter cut ties with him because of his views on trans people. He’s not offering science — he’s settling scores. “Cis” is used in every major scientific, medical, and legal context — from the NHS and British Psychological Society to the UN and peer-reviewed research. Language isn’t defined by billionaires with grudges; it’s defined by evidence and shared understanding." I think you are giving Musk a great run for his money. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are plenty of things that are held as true by belief. Look at religion in this belief system, men who can fly, live hundreds of years, gods with lots of limbs, gods made up from elephants and man, flying horses do you believe any of that, where is tge scientific proof yet billions believe in these things and they are still in existence nowadays. You mention endocrinology. They look after things, one of which are sex hormones. So there's testosterone and oestrogen, male and female hormones. So whats the trans hormone then? Mrs x" Really not sure what point you’re trying to make with that first paragraph. As for the second — that’s a fallacy built on a faulty premise. Every human being on the planet has both oestrogen and testosterone. Right now, if an endocrinologist looked at my bloodwork, they’d see hormone levels within the normal range for a woman in her mid-40s. And to answer your last question directly: there’s no “trans hormone” for the same reason there’s no “gay hormone” or “left-handed hormone.” Endocrinology doesn’t define gender; it supports it. Hormone therapy brings a person’s body into alignment with their gender identity, the same way thyroid treatment restores balance for someone with hypothyroidism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you are giving Musk a great run for his money. Mrs x" That literally makes no sense — not as an insult, not as a comparison, and certainly not as an argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are you suggesting I should be endangered and have my safety and dignity reduced because of what a cis man might do? " You mean a man, a male man ? Goodnight 😘 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never answer this but you have a prostate, that's biological, scientific that is how the world is not how you want it to be. Explain that, Mrs x Anatomy isn’t gender. Bodies have organs; people have identities. The presence or absence of a prostate doesn’t determine whether someone is a man or a woman any more than the presence of ovaries decides personality, behaviour, or social role. If anatomy alone defined gender, hysterectomies would erase womanhood and prostate cancer would make men something else — yet no one argues that. Biology describes parts; gender describes people." Anatomy isn't gender, gender is a social construct apparently as Trans peiple keep saying, so its something thats made up by society ok but anatomy about is sex. Isn't that why Trans people undergo extensive operations on their external anatomy to achieve a look closer to their desired sex. Sex not gender because you can change that apparently by just thinking about it, no operations are required. It's almost as if you've forgotten what it means to transition fully. You yourself said sex is determined by observation at birth, did you forget what you wrote. So how does that observation work, care to walk me through it? The presence of a prostate does define someone as a male, females do not have them. Men dont have bombs. You say bodies have organs, people have identities. So how can any person live without organs? You can keep a personal who is brain dead, without personality, alive by ensuring their organs recieve the required elements for life. People die from organ failure, not personality failure although you may prove to be the exception to the rule. Your argument about removing wombs or prostate would de-sex someone is beyond ridiculous. You can only perform hysterectomy on a woman and you can only treat men for prostate cancer. Thats a fact, once treated they remain the same sex they have always been. What happens if you remove an appendix? There's room for thought. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anatomy isn't gender, gender is a social construct apparently as Trans peiple keep saying, so its something thats made up by society ok but anatomy about is sex. Isn't that why Trans people undergo extensive operations on their external anatomy to achieve a look closer to their desired sex. Sex not gender because you can change that apparently by just thinking about it, no operations are required. It's almost as if you've forgotten what it means to transition fully. You yourself said sex is determined by observation at birth, did you forget what you wrote. So how does that observation work, care to walk me through it? The presence of a prostate does define someone as a male, females do not have them. Men dont have bombs. You say bodies have organs, people have identities. So how can any person live without organs? You can keep a personal who is brain dead, without personality, alive by ensuring their organs recieve the required elements for life. People die from organ failure, not personality failure although you may prove to be the exception to the rule. Your argument about removing wombs or prostate would de-sex someone is beyond ridiculous. You can only perform hysterectomy on a woman and you can only treat men for prostate cancer. Thats a fact, once treated they remain the same sex they have always been. What happens if you remove an appendix? There's room for thought. Mrs x" I haven’t contradicted myself at any point. You’re forcing a false choice between “everything is binary” and “nothing connects,” when the truth is simply more complex. Sex and gender are related but not identical — one biological, one social and psychological. Transition isn’t about “changing sex” to tick boxes, it’s about aligning body and identity so a person can live comfortably in their own skin. And yes, surgery is part of medical transition for some people, not all. Many cis people also have gender-affirming surgery — boys born with Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) often have breast tissue removed in puberty, women after mastectomy may have reconstruction. None of that makes them “less real.” If you think the presence of a prostate makes someone a man, you’ll have to explain what that means for intersex people born with one ovary and one testis, or for cis women with remnants of prostate tissue (Skene’s glands). Biology is wonderfully messy — and pretending it’s not doesn’t make it simpler, just less accurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are plenty of things that are held as true by belief. Look at religion in this belief system, men who can fly, live hundreds of years, gods with lots of limbs, gods made up from elephants and man, flying horses do you believe any of that, where is tge scientific proof yet billions believe in these things and they are still in existence nowadays. You mention endocrinology. They look after things, one of which are sex hormones. So there's testosterone and oestrogen, male and female hormones. So whats the trans hormone then? Mrs x Really not sure what point you’re trying to make with that first paragraph. As for the second — that’s a fallacy built on a faulty premise. Every human being on the planet has both oestrogen and testosterone. Right now, if an endocrinologist looked at my bloodwork, they’d see hormone levels within the normal range for a woman in her mid-40s. And to answer your last question directly: there’s no “trans hormone” for the same reason there’s no “gay hormone” or “left-handed hormone.” Endocrinology doesn’t define gender; it supports it. Hormone therapy brings a person’s body into alignment with their gender identity, the same way thyroid treatment restores balance for someone with hypothyroidism." First paragraph is about belief not being evidence of anything. Billions more people believe all sorts of incredible religious stuff with no proof or evidence. So your saying other groups believe whatever is not evidence its just beliefs, faith if you will. Second thing, of course everyone else has those sex hormones you are correct but its all about the levels. You quote you have levels of a 40 year old woman but you are not being g genuine are you. You admitted that you have under private treatment on your profile. You wouldn't have to do this if your levels were consistant with a 40 year old woman naturally. Forgot to mention this? Endocrinology doesn't define or support gender. It supports sex, these hormo es are called sex hormones for a reason. Come on keep up Trans 101, gender is a social construct its not sex, its totally separate. I shouldn't have to remind you. This message is hammered home at every opportunity but I bet you'll say they are somehow 'joined' in this case. The xake and eat it hypothesis haha. I know there's no Trans hormone. And why mention there's no 'gay' hormone? Why would there be? Gay people dont stop being a man or a woman just because they are gay, they just fancy other guys and girls. So have I address all your points on this, ok next one, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"First paragraph is about belief not being evidence of anything. Billions more people believe all sorts of incredible religious stuff with no proof or evidence. So your saying other groups believe whatever is not evidence its just beliefs, faith if you will. Second thing, of course everyone else has those sex hormones you are correct but its all about the levels. You quote you have levels of a 40 year old woman but you are not being g genuine are you. You admitted that you have under private treatment on your profile. You wouldn't have to do this if your levels were consistant with a 40 year old woman naturally. Forgot to mention this? Endocrinology doesn't define or support gender. It supports sex, these hormo es are called sex hormones for a reason. Come on keep up Trans 101, gender is a social construct its not sex, its totally separate. I shouldn't have to remind you. This message is hammered home at every opportunity but I bet you'll say they are somehow 'joined' in this case. The xake and eat it hypothesis haha. I know there's no Trans hormone. And why mention there's no 'gay' hormone? Why would there be? Gay people dont stop being a man or a woman just because they are gay, they just fancy other guys and girls. So have I address all your points on this, ok next one, Mrs x" As for hormones, yes — levels matter. That’s exactly why endocrinologists treat trans people: to bring those levels into a range consistent with our affirmed gender. It’s still biology; it’s just guided by medical care. That’s no more “unnatural” than treating thyroid imbalance or diabetes. It’s the same principle that applies to countless cis women going through menopause. Many of them take the exact same medications I do. The only difference is why — theirs replaces what the body stops producing naturally, mine aligns my hormone profile with who I am. Same science, same prescriptions, same endocrinology. And you’re right that “gender” and “sex” aren’t identical. They’re connected but not interchangeable — one social and psychological, the other biological. Understanding how they interact isn’t “having it both ways”; it’s literally what modern medicine and psychology do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anatomy isn't gender, gender is a social construct apparently as Trans peiple keep saying, so its something thats made up by society ok but anatomy about is sex. Isn't that why Trans people undergo extensive operations on their external anatomy to achieve a look closer to their desired sex. Sex not gender because you can change that apparently by just thinking about it, no operations are required. It's almost as if you've forgotten what it means to transition fully. You yourself said sex is determined by observation at birth, did you forget what you wrote. So how does that observation work, care to walk me through it? The presence of a prostate does define someone as a male, females do not have them. Men dont have bombs. You say bodies have organs, people have identities. So how can any person live without organs? You can keep a personal who is brain dead, without personality, alive by ensuring their organs recieve the required elements for life. People die from organ failure, not personality failure although you may prove to be the exception to the rule. Your argument about removing wombs or prostate would de-sex someone is beyond ridiculous. You can only perform hysterectomy on a woman and you can only treat men for prostate cancer. Thats a fact, once treated they remain the same sex they have always been. What happens if you remove an appendix? There's room for thought. Mrs x I haven’t contradicted myself at any point. You’re forcing a false choice between “everything is binary” and “nothing connects,” when the truth is simply more complex. Sex and gender are related but not identical — one biological, one social and psychological. Transition isn’t about “changing sex” to tick boxes, it’s about aligning body and identity so a person can live comfortably in their own skin. And yes, surgery is part of medical transition for some people, not all. Many cis people also have gender-affirming surgery — boys born with Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) often have breast tissue removed in puberty, women after mastectomy may have reconstruction. None of that makes them “less real.” If you think the presence of a prostate makes someone a man, you’ll have to explain what that means for intersex people born with one ovary and one testis, or for cis women with remnants of prostate tissue (Skene’s glands). Biology is wonderfully messy — and pretending it’s not doesn’t make it simpler, just less accurate." You describe conditions that are extremely small percentage wise. The examples you quote of gender affirming surgery is ridiculous. Both surgeries in these cases are sex affirming because you dont need to have a procedure to change your gender. This is the view from the Trans community. It's why people can be gender fluid, able to switch between genders apparently. Nobody is sex fluid, tgat would be very painful and expensive switching sex at will. Come on you are supposed to be part of this community. Yet you post arguments that contradict yourself and the Trans mantra of gender and sex being seperate. As for Skene glands being the remnants of a prostate thats brilliant. So you are putting that forward to suggest anatomy is not an indictator of sex due to having evolved glands from a prostate. This is a hypothesis at best but let's run with it. Every person on the plant that has ears, has evidence that we evolved from fish. Ears are the actual remnants of gills, which have undergone evolutionary change, your coccyx is evidence of a vestigial remnants of a tail from our private ancestors. Neither of these pieces of our anatomy mean we are a fish or a monkey. Anything else? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"First paragraph is about belief not being evidence of anything. Billions more people believe all sorts of incredible religious stuff with no proof or evidence. So your saying other groups believe whatever is not evidence its just beliefs, faith if you will. Second thing, of course everyone else has those sex hormones you are correct but its all about the levels. You quote you have levels of a 40 year old woman but you are not being g genuine are you. You admitted that you have under private treatment on your profile. You wouldn't have to do this if your levels were consistant with a 40 year old woman naturally. Forgot to mention this? Endocrinology doesn't define or support gender. It supports sex, these hormo es are called sex hormones for a reason. Come on keep up Trans 101, gender is a social construct its not sex, its totally separate. I shouldn't have to remind you. This message is hammered home at every opportunity but I bet you'll say they are somehow 'joined' in this case. The xake and eat it hypothesis haha. I know there's no Trans hormone. And why mention there's no 'gay' hormone? Why would there be? Gay people dont stop being a man or a woman just because they are gay, they just fancy other guys and girls. So have I address all your points on this, ok next one, Mrs x As for hormones, yes — levels matter. That’s exactly why endocrinologists treat trans people: to bring those levels into a range consistent with our affirmed gender. It’s still biology; it’s just guided by medical care. That’s no more “unnatural” than treating thyroid imbalance or diabetes. It’s the same principle that applies to countless cis women going through menopause. Many of them take the exact same medications I do. The only difference is why — theirs replaces what the body stops producing naturally, mine aligns my hormone profile with who I am. Same science, same prescriptions, same endocrinology. And you’re right that “gender” and “sex” aren’t identical. They’re connected but not interchangeable — one social and psychological, the other biological. Understanding how they interact isn’t “having it both ways”; it’s literally what modern medicine and psychology do. " It's actually chemistry if we are being factual but hey ho. As for it being no more unnatural than treating thyroid complications or diabetes of course it is. Treating those conditions is not changing their sex. Changing your sex is not natural, its a medical procedure. Treating diabetes or thyroid leaves the patient with the same sex they had before starting g treatment, its fundamentally a different thing. As for your menopause example, yes HRT uses drugs to raise the sex levels back to a normal range following menopause. But that too is fundamentally different to what you are going through. Menopausal woman may use si.ilar drugs, methodology and the like to restore their hormonal balance but at the end of the treatment they have not undergone a change in sex. Trans people who flow this treatment do so to change sex, thats a huge difference. It's just not the same. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's actually chemistry if we are being factual but hey ho. As for it being no more unnatural than treating thyroid complications or diabetes of course it is. Treating those conditions is not changing their sex. Changing your sex is not natural, its a medical procedure. Treating diabetes or thyroid leaves the patient with the same sex they had before starting g treatment, its fundamentally a different thing. As for your menopause example, yes HRT uses drugs to raise the sex levels back to a normal range following menopause. But that too is fundamentally different to what you are going through. Menopausal woman may use si.ilar drugs, methodology and the like to restore their hormonal balance but at the end of the treatment they have not undergone a change in sex. Trans people who flow this treatment do so to change sex, thats a huge difference. It's just not the same. Mrs x" Much of medicine is chemistry — the rest is physics and engineering — but all of it is biology. The point of every treatment is the same: to relieve suffering and restore function. Endocrinology treats distress caused by hormonal imbalance. For cis people that might be menopause, PCOS, or thyroid disorders; for trans people it’s dysphoria. The goal is identical — restoring health and comfort. Calling one “natural” and the other “unnatural” isn’t science; it’s ideology. Setting a broken bone, fitting a pacemaker, or taking insulin all alter the body from its “natural” state, yet nobody argues those are wrong. And gender-affirming care doesn’t magically “change sex.” It adjusts hormone levels and secondary characteristics so that body and identity align — exactly what medicine is meant to do. Pretty simple when you follow the science instead of an ideology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You describe conditions that are extremely small percentage wise. The examples you quote of gender affirming surgery is ridiculous. Both surgeries in these cases are sex affirming because you dont need to have a procedure to change your gender. This is the view from the Trans community. It's why people can be gender fluid, able to switch between genders apparently. Nobody is sex fluid, tgat would be very painful and expensive switching sex at will. Come on you are supposed to be part of this community. Yet you post arguments that contradict yourself and the Trans mantra of gender and sex being seperate. As for Skene glands being the remnants of a prostate thats brilliant. So you are putting that forward to suggest anatomy is not an indictator of sex due to having evolved glands from a prostate. This is a hypothesis at best but let's run with it. Every person on the plant that has ears, has evidence that we evolved from fish. Ears are the actual remnants of gills, which have undergone evolutionary change, your coccyx is evidence of a vestigial remnants of a tail from our private ancestors. Neither of these pieces of our anatomy mean we are a fish or a monkey. Anything else? Mrs x" Lol — is there a single argument in there? You’ve strung together unrelated facts, drawn the wrong conclusions from each, and called it a rebuttal. And again, you’re forcing a false dichotomy. “Sex and gender are the same” and “sex and gender have nothing to do with each other” are not the only options. They’re distinct but connected — overlapping systems that influence one another without being identical. Intersex variation, hormone therapy, and anatomical diversity all demonstrate that biology is far more flexible than you seem to want it to be. That isn’t ideology; it’s observation. When you’re ready to discuss evidence instead of fish, monkeys, and false choices, I’ll be here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never answer this but you have a prostate, that's biological, scientific that is how the world is not how you want it to be. Explain that, Mrs x The prostate is illegally occupying the uterine area." Missed this through all the bullshkt, very funny 😁 Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's actually chemistry if we are being factual but hey ho. As for it being no more unnatural than treating thyroid complications or diabetes of course it is. Treating those conditions is not changing their sex. Changing your sex is not natural, its a medical procedure. Treating diabetes or thyroid leaves the patient with the same sex they had before starting g treatment, its fundamentally a different thing. As for your menopause example, yes HRT uses drugs to raise the sex levels back to a normal range following menopause. But that too is fundamentally different to what you are going through. Menopausal woman may use si.ilar drugs, methodology and the like to restore their hormonal balance but at the end of the treatment they have not undergone a change in sex. Trans people who flow this treatment do so to change sex, thats a huge difference. It's just not the same. Mrs x Much of medicine is chemistry — the rest is physics and engineering — but all of it is biology. The point of every treatment is the same: to relieve suffering and restore function. Endocrinology treats distress caused by hormonal imbalance. For cis people that might be menopause, PCOS, or thyroid disorders; for trans people it’s dysphoria. The goal is identical — restoring health and comfort. Calling one “natural” and the other “unnatural” isn’t science; it’s ideology. Setting a broken bone, fitting a pacemaker, or taking insulin all alter the body from its “natural” state, yet nobody argues those are wrong. And gender-affirming care doesn’t magically “change sex.” It adjusts hormone levels and secondary characteristics so that body and identity align — exactly what medicine is meant to do. Pretty simple when you follow the science instead of an ideology." When did I say it was wrong? Please quote me and when you do I'll address this post. Your endocrinology example is flawed. It's not about restoring things for Trans people. You can only restore something back to what it once was. So yes that applies to menopausal woman. But for a Trans person its all about change, going from one thing to another, that's why its called a transition. You cannot change sex naturally, if you can please supply evidence of this. Now I'm not saying that this is wrong, there are all sorts of procedures that are unnatural but they are not wrong either. Transplants are a wonderful example of this. Joint replacements are another. But to not acknowledge these procedures as unnatural is not a genuine position to take. These unnatural advances provide freedom for suffering and better quality of life but they are not natural. A knee replacement is not a real knee, its an artifical knee and there's nothing wrong with that. You dont hear any claiming they still have a real k ee after the procedure they always refer to it as an knee replacement or artificial knee. It's the same reality for those who have transitioned, you dont go from a man to a woman, you go from a man to a Trans woman. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You describe conditions that are extremely small percentage wise. The examples you quote of gender affirming surgery is ridiculous. Both surgeries in these cases are sex affirming because you dont need to have a procedure to change your gender. This is the view from the Trans community. It's why people can be gender fluid, able to switch between genders apparently. Nobody is sex fluid, tgat would be very painful and expensive switching sex at will. Come on you are supposed to be part of this community. Yet you post arguments that contradict yourself and the Trans mantra of gender and sex being seperate. As for Skene glands being the remnants of a prostate thats brilliant. So you are putting that forward to suggest anatomy is not an indictator of sex due to having evolved glands from a prostate. This is a hypothesis at best but let's run with it. Every person on the plant that has ears, has evidence that we evolved from fish. Ears are the actual remnants of gills, which have undergone evolutionary change, your coccyx is evidence of a vestigial remnants of a tail from our private ancestors. Neither of these pieces of our anatomy mean we are a fish or a monkey. Anything else? Mrs x Lol — is there a single argument in there? You’ve strung together unrelated facts, drawn the wrong conclusions from each, and called it a rebuttal. And again, you’re forcing a false dichotomy. “Sex and gender are the same” and “sex and gender have nothing to do with each other” are not the only options. They’re distinct but connected — overlapping systems that influence one another without being identical. Intersex variation, hormone therapy, and anatomical diversity all demonstrate that biology is far more flexible than you seem to want it to be. That isn’t ideology; it’s observation. When you’re ready to discuss evidence instead of fish, monkeys, and false choices, I’ll be here." You dont like logic haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When did I say it was wrong? Please quote me and when you do I'll address this post. Your endocrinology example is flawed. It's not about restoring things for Trans people. You can only restore something back to what it once was. So yes that applies to menopausal woman. But for a Trans person its all about change, going from one thing to another, that's why its called a transition. You cannot change sex naturally, if you can please supply evidence of this. Now I'm not saying that this is wrong, there are all sorts of procedures that are unnatural but they are not wrong either. Transplants are a wonderful example of this. Joint replacements are another. But to not acknowledge these procedures as unnatural is not a genuine position to take. These unnatural advances provide freedom for suffering and better quality of life but they are not natural. A knee replacement is not a real knee, its an artifical knee and there's nothing wrong with that. You dont hear any claiming they still have a real k ee after the procedure they always refer to it as an knee replacement or artificial knee. It's the same reality for those who have transitioned, you dont go from a man to a woman, you go from a man to a Trans woman. Mrs x" You’re right — you didn’t say it was wrong, and I didn’t say you did. What I said was that calling it unnatural is still an ideological framing, not a scientific one. “Natural” just means “occurring without medical intervention.” Every transplant, vaccination, or prosthetic is technically “unnatural” by that standard. Medicine itself is “unnatural” — that’s the point. It exists to do what nature can’t or won’t. And your idea that “restoring” only means returning to a previous state doesn’t hold up in medicine. We “restore” vision with glasses, mobility with wheelchairs, fertility with IVF, and function with pacemakers. None of those existed before the intervention, but all restore well-being. Transition does exactly that — it restores the alignment between body and self, which is why it’s recognised by every major medical authority as effective treatment. As for your final point: “trans woman” isn’t a subcategory of “not-real woman.” It’s a legally protected and medically recognised descriptor of the same gender, not a lesser version. Calling it “artificial” is just dressing prejudice in lab-coat language. Pretty simple when you keep the definitions consistent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You dont like logic haha, Mrs x" I adore logic — that’s why I use it. Logic follows evidence; it doesn’t bend to ideology or convenience. If you think my points are illogical, show where the reasoning fails. So far, all you’ve done is swap evidence for mockery, which isn’t the same thing. Sex and gender being distinct but related isn’t a contradiction — it’s the position of modern biology, psychology, and medicine. The fact that it frustrates you doesn’t make it false. When you’re ready to argue from data rather than disdain, I’ll still be here — logic and all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When did I say it was wrong? Please quote me and when you do I'll address this post. Your endocrinology example is flawed. It's not about restoring things for Trans people. You can only restore something back to what it once was. So yes that applies to menopausal woman. But for a Trans person its all about change, going from one thing to another, that's why its called a transition. You cannot change sex naturally, if you can please supply evidence of this. Now I'm not saying that this is wrong, there are all sorts of procedures that are unnatural but they are not wrong either. Transplants are a wonderful example of this. Joint replacements are another. But to not acknowledge these procedures as unnatural is not a genuine position to take. These unnatural advances provide freedom for suffering and better quality of life but they are not natural. A knee replacement is not a real knee, its an artifical knee and there's nothing wrong with that. You dont hear any claiming they still have a real k ee after the procedure they always refer to it as an knee replacement or artificial knee. It's the same reality for those who have transitioned, you dont go from a man to a woman, you go from a man to a Trans woman. Mrs x You’re right — you didn’t say it was wrong, and I didn’t say you did. What I said was that calling it unnatural is still an ideological framing, not a scientific one. “Natural” just means “occurring without medical intervention.” Every transplant, vaccination, or prosthetic is technically “unnatural” by that standard. Medicine itself is “unnatural” — that’s the point. It exists to do what nature can’t or won’t. And your idea that “restoring” only means returning to a previous state doesn’t hold up in medicine. We “restore” vision with glasses, mobility with wheelchairs, fertility with IVF, and function with pacemakers. None of those existed before the intervention, but all restore well-being. Transition does exactly that — it restores the alignment between body and self, which is why it’s recognised by every major medical authority as effective treatment. As for your final point: “trans woman” isn’t a subcategory of “not-real woman.” It’s a legally protected and medically recognised descriptor of the same gender, not a lesser version. Calling it “artificial” is just dressing prejudice in lab-coat language. Pretty simple when you keep the definitions consistent." Transition doesn't restore, you never had it previously to restore. And I never called Trans woman artificial, they just arent woman, they are Trans, everyone born as a man Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You dont like logic haha, Mrs x I adore logic — that’s why I use it. Logic follows evidence; it doesn’t bend to ideology or convenience. If you think my points are illogical, show where the reasoning fails. So far, all you’ve done is swap evidence for mockery, which isn’t the same thing. Sex and gender being distinct but related isn’t a contradiction — it’s the position of modern biology, psychology, and medicine. The fact that it frustrates you doesn’t make it false. When you’re ready to argue from data rather than disdain, I’ll still be here — logic and all." I'm not frustrated. I know what I am, what I've always been and what I'll always be. No need for pills, potions or knives, perfectly happy in my own, totally original, skin, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the vast majority of us just want to be safe and live our lives with dignity. If you look at any stats, trans people are far more likely to be on the receiving end of violence and discrimination than the perpetrators. You can think what you like about us but we’re human just like everyone else and want to be treated as such " Thats absolutely correct and well said, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That’s the whole difference then — I want everyone to feel at peace in their skin, not just the people who were lucky enough to start there. If you’re happy as you are, that’s great. I just believe that peace shouldn’t depend on pretending others don’t deserve the same. And thankfully, the science is on my side." So without quoting everything else that's been said. Going by what you have said that a trans woman is protected by law to be called a woman, yes? Yet people who are male or female at birth must be referred to a a cis man or cis woman? So are you actually saying that only Trans people can be called man or woman, everyone else is cis gender??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So without quoting everything else that's been said. Going by what you have said that a trans woman is protected by law to be called a woman, yes? Yet people who are male or female at birth must be referred to a a cis man or cis woman? So are you actually saying that only Trans people can be called man or woman, everyone else is cis gender??? " Absolutely not. Cis and trans are just adjectives — descriptors used when there’s a reason to distinguish between two types of the same category. If I say cis woman and trans woman, I’m differentiating within the category woman, not replacing it. The same way we say tall or short person, but both are still people. In ordinary conversation I just say woman — unless the distinction is relevant. That’s how language works: adjectives clarify, they don’t exclude. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the vast majority of us just want to be safe and live our lives with dignity. If you look at any stats, trans people are far more likely to be on the receiving end of violence and discrimination than the perpetrators. You can think what you like about us but we’re human just like everyone else and want to be treated as such " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So are you actually saying that only Trans people can be called man or woman, everyone else is cis gender??? " The easy way to think of whether cis* or trans* needs to be used would be to think of it as you would any other describer of that person e.g. tall, blonde, blue eyed You wouldn’t in everyday use say she’s a tall woman if it wasn’t relevant to the conversation. If it’s not relevant whether someone is cis or trans just say woman or man. When it is relevant to distinguish that difference use cis or trans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So are you actually saying that only Trans people can be called man or woman, everyone else is cis gender??? The easy way to think of whether cis* or trans* needs to be used would be to think of it as you would any other describer of that person e.g. tall, blonde, blue eyed You wouldn’t in everyday use say she’s a tall woman if it wasn’t relevant to the conversation. If it’s not relevant whether someone is cis or trans just say woman or man. When it is relevant to distinguish that difference use cis or trans " So what does cis actually bring thats extra to the definition of man or woman? Whats been missing for the last few thousands of years that requires this extra layer of definition.? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whats been missing for the last few thousands of years that requires this extra layer of definition.? Mrs x" It might help to think of it this way. If for thousands of years no one had ever considered someone hair colour as being relevant we probably wouldn’t have a word for blonde or brunette. Then if it did change and people worried about it but the vast majority were brunette then they’d just call the blonde people “blondes” and brunettes “people” despite them both being “people”. As time goes on, attitudes changed and it was realised that the term blonde only applied if you were actually talking about someone’s hair colour and so everyone is now called people unless you had to distinguish between them. Replace blonde and brunette for trans and cis respectively and that’s where we are. Trans people and cis people are all people , only using the prefix when it’s relevant to the conversation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It might help to think of it this way. If for thousands of years no one had ever considered someone hair colour as being relevant we probably wouldn’t have a word for blonde or brunette. Then if it did change and people worried about it but the vast majority were brunette then they’d just call the blonde people “blondes” and brunettes “people” despite them both being “people”. As time goes on, attitudes changed and it was realised that the term blonde only applied if you were actually talking about someone’s hair colour and so everyone is now called people unless you had to distinguish between them. Replace blonde and brunette for trans and cis respectively and that’s where we are. Trans people and cis people are all people , only using the prefix when it’s relevant to the conversation " Exactly. What’s happening now mirrors what happened when straight entered the language. People used to say, “Don’t call me a straight man — I’m a normal man.” The argument was identical: they mistook a neutral descriptor for an insult simply because it made the invisible majority visible. “Cis” does the same job. It’s not an extra layer — it’s linguistic symmetry. If “trans” exists to describe one experience, “cis” exists to describe the counterpart. Refusing the word doesn’t erase the reality it names; it just tries to keep one group unlabelled and unexamined. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what does cis actually bring thats extra to the definition of man or woman? Whats been missing for the last few thousands of years that requires this extra layer of definition.?" For hundreds of years we had the word "guitar", and everyone knew what it meant. Then someone invented a noisy new-fangled thing that they called an "electric guitar". This became unreasonably popular, and we had to start saying "acoustic guitar" to differentiate the original from the newcomer. "Cis" is the same. We didn't need the word until we started having discussions about trans women, and now we need it to bring clarity to the discussion. You can keep claiming "I find acoustic guitar offensive. The simple word 'guitar' has always been good enough for me, and everyone knows what it means", but you'll find that you keep being misunderstood. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what does cis actually bring thats extra to the definition of man or woman? Whats been missing for the last few thousands of years that requires this extra layer of definition.? Mrs x" It brings extra clarity to a scenario with growing awareness, specifically around gender. It’s not a new word. It has the same roots in Latin as ‘trans’ and they’re always each others logical opposite. The clearest modern example other than gender is in the patch of land English-speaking countries call the West Bank. We’ve only done so since the late 1940s, but anyone from a country with language still influenced by Latin calls it their language’s variation of Cisjordania. It was thus called because it’s on the Roman side of the River Jordan. The area now commonly known as Jordan, the Romans named Transjordan. Because cis describes ‘on this side’ and trans means ‘to go across’. There have been trans people all across history in all sorts of cultures. Colonisation brought with it Christianity and conformity to then-modern standards of binary gender. So we deliberately never established terminology for it all. Science of the 20th Century enabled trans people to receive proper care and it’s from the medical science that supports that where ‘cis’ was originally proposed toward the Millennium, as the word that could distinguish a person that is not transitioning from a person who is, with the requirement to retain equality and dignity for everyone. Not for just the people who aren’t trans or vice versa - in the eyes of medical science, as should be for everyone - no subset of person has greater importance than another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For hundreds of years we had the word "guitar", and everyone knew what it meant. Then someone invented a noisy new-fangled thing that they called an "electric guitar". This became unreasonably popular, and we had to start saying "acoustic guitar" to differentiate the original from the newcomer. "Cis" is the same. We didn't need the word until we started having discussions about trans women, and now we need it to bring clarity to the discussion. You can keep claiming "I find acoustic guitar offensive. The simple word 'guitar' has always been good enough for me, and everyone knows what it means", but you'll find that you keep being misunderstood." That’s such a great analogy — I’ve made a similar comparison before myself. It really captures how cis and trans are just practical linguistic tools, not loaded statements. It’s the same pattern language always follows: once a new concept enters common use, we add words to keep things clear. No drama, no insult — just better precision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very disrespectful if they dont like the term and find it offensive. I've not denied you anything, legally or otherwise. Ok let's suppose you are correct that I'm a Cis woman and that you are a Trans woman. Does that mean you'll never, ever be a woman because in order to be a Trans woman you and every other Trans woman had to start out life as a man. Whereas every Cis woman started out as a woman and stayed a woman. Not sure you'd like that argument, maybe show some respect and not force your beliefs on others when told not to and then others wont do the same to you, Mrs x That’s a tragically untrue statement, and it can be debunked in many ways. No one is born a woman or born a man; we’re born infants. Adults assign a sex at birth based on visible traits, and sometimes they guess wrong — especially for intersex children, who make up roughly 1–2 % of births. There is no single, simple definition of “sex” or “gender” in science that fits every case. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy all vary more than most school biology textbooks admit. The more we learn about biology, the clearer it becomes that human diversity isn’t an opinion — it’s a measurable fact." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For hundreds of years we had the word "guitar", and everyone knew what it meant. Then someone invented a noisy new-fangled thing that they called an "electric guitar". This became unreasonably popular, and we had to start saying "acoustic guitar" to differentiate the original from the newcomer. "Cis" is the same. We didn't need the word until we started having discussions about trans women, and now we need it to bring clarity to the discussion. You can keep claiming "I find acoustic guitar offensive. The simple word 'guitar' has always been good enough for me, and everyone knows what it means", but you'll find that you keep being misunderstood." The problem is that some people think that electric guitars aren't guitars. They might reluctantly use the term electric guitar but using the term acoustic guitar is a step too far because to them there can only be one kind of guitar and it's not electric. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For hundreds of years we had the word "guitar", and everyone knew what it meant. Then someone invented a noisy new-fangled thing that they called an "electric guitar". This became unreasonably popular, and we had to start saying "acoustic guitar" to differentiate the original from the newcomer. "Cis" is the same. We didn't need the word until we started having discussions about trans women, and now we need it to bring clarity to the discussion. You can keep claiming "I find acoustic guitar offensive. The simple word 'guitar' has always been good enough for me, and everyone knows what it means", but you'll find that you keep being misunderstood." "The problem is that some people think that electric guitars aren't guitars. They might reluctantly use the term electric guitar but using the term acoustic guitar is a step too far because to them there can only be one kind of guitar and it's not electric." That's exactly what I should have said in my first post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Whats been missing for the last few thousands of years that requires this extra layer of definition.? Mrs x It might help to think of it this way. If for thousands of years no one had ever considered someone hair colour as being relevant we probably wouldn’t have a word for blonde or brunette. Then if it did change and people worried about it but the vast majority were brunette then they’d just call the blonde people “blondes” and brunettes “people” despite them both being “people”. As time goes on, attitudes changed and it was realised that the term blonde only applied if you were actually talking about someone’s hair colour and so everyone is now called people unless you had to distinguish between them. Replace blonde and brunette for trans and cis respectively and that’s where we are. Trans people and cis people are all people , only using the prefix when it’s relevant to the conversation " I'd only ever use the term Trans in context of a conversation were this was being discussed. But the actually definition for Cis does not mention differentiating between different types, in your examples blondes or brunettes. Cis is defined as [s]omeone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth. From the Collins dictionary. So you can see its not a comparator between two different types of woman. Cis is literally an adjective to describe nothings change, that the original state has not altered That's why its useless. Look at water. Everyone knows what it is. Water can exist in 3 states, liquid, solid or gas. So water as Water, as Ice and as Steam. You dont need to have anything else to describe each different state of water. It would be ridiculous to say its' 'Non Liquid' or 'Non Gas', if you frozen water, its just Ice. The same for the other states. So everyone knows what a woman is and for those who dispute this, why do Trans people describe themselves as Trans woman or Trans men? So assuming everyone knows what a woman is, nothings happened during birth to question this, nothing developmentally has altered during your adolescence and you reach maturity and nothing has changed your mind about altering your sex, why do you need an adjective to describe this state of nothing. So to be 'recognised' as a cisgender woman you must be born a woman, grow up a woman and identify as being a woman, so doesn't that mean you are just a woman? It's a ridiculous thing, redundant, adding nothing to a definition of a woman. You dont add anything to something else if nothings changed. You dont become a 'non' amputee woman', if you were born with two legs, nothing happened to your legs as you grew up and you still have the same two legs in adulthood, your just a woman. Amputee as a descriptor only applies to someone who has had to change the number of legs they have because of medical necessity. Cis feels like woman are being forced to accept there are two kinds of woman and there isn't. I think thats why there is offence taken by woman when being called this. Also the word itself has only been in the dictionary for 10 years, so what was ai for the 40 odd years before that, oh yeah I was a woman, no problems, no issues, simple,concise and accurate. I think that's an issue too. But there's no need to mention Trans woman, or Cis, outside of debates such as these. Live and let live and dont use offensive terms to anyone if you dont want them to use offensive terms to you. Treat everyone like you wish to be treated. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Option 2: - Trans women for trans women - Cis-women for biological women - Women for the group putting trans women and biological women I personally believe that going with Option 2 is unnecessarily disruptive. Numerous medical, legal documentation refer women to mean biological women. We can go with option 1 and then choose where trans women can be put together with women. Like, physical sports can say women sports is meant for women. In areas where it makes sense to put the two groups together, we can use the word that puts the two groups together. End of the day, which option prevails depends on who has the most political power." There is a lot to agree with about the above, but we’re missing that as many trans men and trans masc non-binary people born of the female sex as trans women/trans fems exist too. Medical documentation that’s used to acknowledge their existence as well, rather than just grouping them as ‘women’ is generally, imo, sensible. To me, the merit’s clear to say, ‘People with cervices should book smear tests’ and I don’t understand the reluctance to welcome that - I don’t understand how it could be taken as insulting. Just the same, there should be medical literature that says, ‘People with a prostate, be reminded you should get it checked around 50’ To me as a trans woman, that’s not transphobic, it just makes the service provider sound more welcoming, because it’s not sexist, which is ultimately what we all want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd only ever use the term Trans in context of a conversation were this was being discussed. But the actually definition for Cis does not mention differentiating between different types, in your examples blondes or brunettes. Cis is defined as [s]omeone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth. From the Collins dictionary. So you can see its not a comparator between two different types of woman. Cis is literally an adjective to describe nothings change, that the original state has not altered That's why its useless. Look at water. Everyone knows what it is. Water can exist in 3 states, liquid, solid or gas. So water as Water, as Ice and as Steam. You dont need to have anything else to describe each different state of water. It would be ridiculous to say its' 'Non Liquid' or 'Non Gas', if you frozen water, its just Ice. The same for the other states. So everyone knows what a woman is and for those who dispute this, why do Trans people describe themselves as Trans woman or Trans men? So assuming everyone knows what a woman is, nothings happened during birth to question this, nothing developmentally has altered during your adolescence and you reach maturity and nothing has changed your mind about altering your sex, why do you need an adjective to describe this state of nothing. So to be 'recognised' as a cisgender woman you must be born a woman, grow up a woman and identify as being a woman, so doesn't that mean you are just a woman? It's a ridiculous thing, redundant, adding nothing to a definition of a woman. You dont add anything to something else if nothings changed. You dont become a 'non' amputee woman', if you were born with two legs, nothing happened to your legs as you grew up and you still have the same two legs in adulthood, your just a woman. Amputee as a descriptor only applies to someone who has had to change the number of legs they have because of medical necessity. Cis feels like woman are being forced to accept there are two kinds of woman and there isn't. I think thats why there is offence taken by woman when being called this. Also the word itself has only been in the dictionary for 10 years, so what was ai for the 40 odd years before that, oh yeah I was a woman, no problems, no issues, simple,concise and accurate. I think that's an issue too. But there's no need to mention Trans woman, or Cis, outside of debates such as these. Live and let live and dont use offensive terms to anyone if you dont want them to use offensive terms to you. Treat everyone like you wish to be treated. Mrs x " It all circles back to a single belief you hold — that trans women aren’t women. Everything else you’ve said flows from that one assumption. The problem is, that view isn’t supported anywhere outside ideology. It’s not the majority view, not the legal view, and not the scientific one. Every major medical, psychological, and legal authority recognises trans women as women — because that’s what the evidence supports. You can call the term “cis” redundant if you like, but language evolves to describe reality, not to protect comfort. Science, law, and society have already moved on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I personally believe that going with Option 2 is unnecessarily disruptive. Numerous medical, legal documentation refer women to mean biological women. We can go with option 1 and then choose where trans women can be put together with women. Like, physical sports can say women sports is meant for women. In areas where it makes sense to put the two groups together, we can use the word that puts the two groups together. End of the day, which option prevails depends on who has the most political power." You’re right — those are the two broad options. I just disagree that option 2 is disruptive. When “straight” entered language to describe heterosexuality, people had exactly the same reaction. They said it was unnecessary, confusing, or politically driven. But language adapted, and clarity won out. “Cis” serves the same purpose: it adds precision when a conversation involves both cis and trans people. That isn’t disruption — it’s linguistic housekeeping. Words evolve to reflect reality, not to maintain hierarchy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is a lot to agree with about the above, but we’re missing that as many trans men and trans masc non-binary people born of the female sex as trans women/trans fems exist too. Medical documentation that’s used to acknowledge their existence as well, rather than just grouping them as ‘women’ is generally, imo, sensible. To me, the merit’s clear to say, ‘People with cervices should book smear tests’ and I don’t understand the reluctance to welcome that - I don’t understand how it could be taken as insulting. Just the same, there should be medical literature that says, ‘People with a prostate, be reminded you should get it checked around 50’ To me as a trans woman, that’s not transphobic, it just makes the service provider sound more welcoming, because it’s not sexist, which is ultimately what we all want." I personally don't see these words as insults. It's convenience and clarity that matters to me. Making wholesale changes to what a word means from what it used to mean for many people is going to be really difficult and there will obviously be lots of push back from people. Not to mention the fact that different countries might end up using different meanings for the same words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When “straight” entered language to describe heterosexuality, people had exactly the same reaction. They said it was unnecessary, confusing, or politically driven. But language adapted, and clarity won out. " I don't think the reaction was same and I don't think the issues are same either. The introduction of the word straight did not result in the change in meaning of a widely used word. By introducing the term cis, you are forcing a change in the meaning of "man" and "woman" that most people have used. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I personally don't see these words as insults. It's convenience and clarity that matters to me. Making wholesale changes to what a word means from what it used to mean for many people is going to be really difficult and there will obviously be lots of push back from people. Not to mention the fact that different countries might end up using different meanings for the same words." But that’s the thing — no one’s trying to change the definition of “woman.” We’re just using clearer language to describe different groups of women when context makes it relevant. “Cis” and “trans” don’t alter what “woman” means — they specify which kind of woman is being referred to in that conversation. It’s the same way we use adjectives like “tall,” “young,” or “Scottish.” The noun doesn’t change — only the detail does. That’s not rewriting meaning; it’s refining communication. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think the reaction was same and I don't think the issues are same either. The introduction of the word straight did not result in the change in meaning of a widely used word. By introducing the term cis, you are forcing a change in the meaning of "man" and "woman" that most people have used." Again, the meaning of “woman” hasn’t changed. In law, in medicine, and in science, the word still refers to someone who is legally and socially recognised as female. All claims that the definition has changed come from an explicitly trans-exclusionary stance — an ideological one, not a legal or scientific one. The Equality Act 2010, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and every major medical authority in the UK recognise trans women as women within that same definition. So “cis” doesn’t replace the meaning of woman; it just distinguishes context when needed — the same way “straight” did for sexuality. The only people insisting the definition changed are the ones uncomfortable that it stayed inclusive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But that’s the thing — no one’s trying to change the definition of “woman.” " You are changing the definition. For most people around the world, the word "woman" always meant biological women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think the reaction was same and I don't think the issues are same either. The introduction of the word straight did not result in the change in meaning of a widely used word. By introducing the term cis, you are forcing a change in the meaning of "man" and "woman" that most people have used. Again, the meaning of “woman” hasn’t changed. In law, in medicine, and in science, the word still refers to someone who is legally and socially recognised as female. " Legal/social recognition changes all the time along with politics. Does medicine and science also change every time politics changes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd only ever use the term Trans in context of a conversation were this was being discussed. But the actually definition for Cis does not mention differentiating between different types, in your examples blondes or brunettes. Cis is defined as [s]omeone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth. From the Collins dictionary. So you can see its not a comparator between two different types of woman. Cis is literally an adjective to describe nothings change, that the original state has not altered That's why its useless. Look at water. Everyone knows what it is. Water can exist in 3 states, liquid, solid or gas. So water as Water, as Ice and as Steam. You dont need to have anything else to describe each different state of water. It would be ridiculous to say its' 'Non Liquid' or 'Non Gas', if you frozen water, its just Ice. The same for the other states. So everyone knows what a woman is and for those who dispute this, why do Trans people describe themselves as Trans woman or Trans men? So assuming everyone knows what a woman is, nothings happened during birth to question this, nothing developmentally has altered during your adolescence and you reach maturity and nothing has changed your mind about altering your sex, why do you need an adjective to describe this state of nothing. So to be 'recognised' as a cisgender woman you must be born a woman, grow up a woman and identify as being a woman, so doesn't that mean you are just a woman? It's a ridiculous thing, redundant, adding nothing to a definition of a woman. You dont add anything to something else if nothings changed. You dont become a 'non' amputee woman', if you were born with two legs, nothing happened to your legs as you grew up and you still have the same two legs in adulthood, your just a woman. Amputee as a descriptor only applies to someone who has had to change the number of legs they have because of medical necessity. Cis feels like woman are being forced to accept there are two kinds of woman and there isn't. I think thats why there is offence taken by woman when being called this. Also the word itself has only been in the dictionary for 10 years, so what was ai for the 40 odd years before that, oh yeah I was a woman, no problems, no issues, simple,concise and accurate. I think that's an issue too. But there's no need to mention Trans woman, or Cis, outside of debates such as these. Live and let live and dont use offensive terms to anyone if you dont want them to use offensive terms to you. Treat everyone like you wish to be treated. Mrs x It all circles back to a single belief you hold — that trans women aren’t women. Everything else you’ve said flows from that one assumption. The problem is, that view isn’t supported anywhere outside ideology. It’s not the majority view, not the legal view, and not the scientific one. Every major medical, psychological, and legal authority recognises trans women as women — because that’s what the evidence supports. You can call the term “cis” redundant if you like, but language evolves to describe reality, not to protect comfort. Science, law, and society have already moved on." I've said enough on this so you know my thoughts on this. However you also know I've said that nothing I've said has come from a position of superiority. You can call yourself whatever you want and thats fine, I've not disputed that. In 'real' life I wouldnt dream of calling you what you didnt want to be called. What I object to is not receiving the same respect in return. You claim its not the majority view, legal or scientific view but you dont supply and evidence that supports this. When you say majority do you mean the majority of the entire planet believe Trans people actually can change their sex? Where's the science that says this, so you are saying absolutely sex change is possible? On what basis neurological, psychological, anatomical even genetical? Go on show me the evidence please. Or maybe just agree to disagree and treat everyone nicely, with respect. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It all circles back to a single belief you hold — that trans women aren’t women. Everything else you’ve said flows from that one assumption. The problem is, that view isn’t supported anywhere outside ideology. It’s not the majority view, not the legal view, and not the scientific one." What's your evidence that the majority of the general public feel that trans women are 'real' women? You've mentioned the Equality Act several times, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that "woman" refers to biological sex for the purposes of discrimination law. This makes it clear that trans women are not 'real' women from some legal viewpoints. How do you square that with your statement that the law has the view that trans women are 'real' women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd only ever use the term Trans in context of a conversation were this was being discussed. But the actually definition for Cis does not mention differentiating between different types, in your examples blondes or brunettes. Cis is defined as [s]omeone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth. From the Collins dictionary. So you can see its not a comparator between two different types of woman. Cis is literally an adjective to describe nothings change, that the original state has not altered That's why its useless. Look at water. Everyone knows what it is. Water can exist in 3 states, liquid, solid or gas. So water as Water, as Ice and as Steam. You dont need to have anything else to describe each different state of water. It would be ridiculous to say its' 'Non Liquid' or 'Non Gas', if you frozen water, its just Ice. The same for the other states. So everyone knows what a woman is and for those who dispute this, why do Trans people describe themselves as Trans woman or Trans men? So assuming everyone knows what a woman is, nothings happened during birth to question this, nothing developmentally has altered during your adolescence and you reach maturity and nothing has changed your mind about altering your sex, why do you need an adjective to describe this state of nothing. So to be 'recognised' as a cisgender woman you must be born a woman, grow up a woman and identify as being a woman, so doesn't that mean you are just a woman? It's a ridiculous thing, redundant, adding nothing to a definition of a woman. You dont add anything to something else if nothings changed. You dont become a 'non' amputee woman', if you were born with two legs, nothing happened to your legs as you grew up and you still have the same two legs in adulthood, your just a woman. Amputee as a descriptor only applies to someone who has had to change the number of legs they have because of medical necessity. Cis feels like woman are being forced to accept there are two kinds of woman and there isn't. I think thats why there is offence taken by woman when being called this. Also the word itself has only been in the dictionary for 10 years, so what was ai for the 40 odd years before that, oh yeah I was a woman, no problems, no issues, simple,concise and accurate. I think that's an issue too. But there's no need to mention Trans woman, or Cis, outside of debates such as these. Live and let live and dont use offensive terms to anyone if you dont want them to use offensive terms to you. Treat everyone like you wish to be treated. Mrs x It all circles back to a single belief you hold — that trans women aren’t women. Everything else you’ve said flows from that one assumption. The problem is, that view isn’t supported anywhere outside ideology. It’s not the majority view, not the legal view, and not the scientific one. Every major medical, psychological, and legal authority recognises trans women as women — because that’s what the evidence supports. You can call the term “cis” redundant if you like, but language evolves to describe reality, not to protect comfort. Science, law, and society have already moved on. I've said enough on this so you know my thoughts on this. However you also know I've said that nothing I've said has come from a position of superiority. You can call yourself whatever you want and thats fine, I've not disputed that. In 'real' life I wouldnt dream of calling you what you didnt want to be called. What I object to is not receiving the same respect in return. You claim its not the majority view, legal or scientific view but you dont supply and evidence that supports this. When you say majority do you mean the majority of the entire planet believe Trans people actually can change their sex? Where's the science that says this, so you are saying absolutely sex change is possible? On what basis neurological, psychological, anatomical even genetical? Go on show me the evidence please. Or maybe just agree to disagree and treat everyone nicely, with respect. Mrs x" I meant to say you claim it is the majority view etc, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A made up word to placate the vocal minority to describe the majority. I'm done with this I said it's something I don't like being referred to as yet ignored. I'm out " It's sad when someone demanding respect doesn't give it. Very sad, hope you are ok. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are changing the definition. For most people around the world, the word "woman" always meant biological women. " But that’s not true either — it’s an assumption about what the “common meaning” was, not a fact. The common meaning of woman has always referred just as much to gender as to sex. For as long as English has existed, the word has been used socially — to describe how a person lives and is recognised — not just biologically. That’s why we say a woman of science, a young woman, or a woman in public life — all gendered contexts, not reproductive ones. And the phrase “biological woman” doesn’t really hold up. Trans women are biological — every human is. What people usually mean is “someone whose sex characteristics at birth aligned with female norms,” but that’s not what “biological” means. So the term “biological woman” applies just as much to trans women as to cis women — both are women, both are biological. The definition of woman hasn’t changed; the ideology that tried to narrow it has. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that’s the thing — no one’s trying to change the definition of “woman.”" That's because we don't have an accepted definition of the word "woman" that can be measured against. Most of the definitions are so woolly that they could include anyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But that’s the thing — no one’s trying to change the definition of “woman.” You are changing the definition. For most people around the world, the word "woman" always meant biological women. " It does mean that, still, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've said enough on this so you know my thoughts on this. However you also know I've said that nothing I've said has come from a position of superiority. You can call yourself whatever you want and thats fine, I've not disputed that. In 'real' life I wouldnt dream of calling you what you didnt want to be called. What I object to is not receiving the same respect in return. You claim its not the majority view, legal or scientific view but you dont supply and evidence that supports this. When you say majority do you mean the majority of the entire planet believe Trans people actually can change their sex? Where's the science that says this, so you are saying absolutely sex change is possible? On what basis neurological, psychological, anatomical even genetical? Go on show me the evidence please. Or maybe just agree to disagree and treat everyone nicely, with respect. Mrs x" Your argument rests on two opinions: 1. “Trans women aren’t women.” 2. “Transition is about changing sex.” Both are ideological, not evidential. What transition is: treatment to reduce gender dysphoria and align body, role, and identity so people can live normally. Not everyone wants or needs surgery. Medicine treats distress; it doesn’t claim to rewrite chromosomes. Law: UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 protect trans women as women in most contexts. Harassing a trans woman by denying her gender can be unlawful. That’s not my belief; that’s statute and case law. Science/medicine: Major authorities (NHS, BPS, APA, WPATH, Endocrine Society) treat gender dysphoria as a real condition and find that gender-affirming care is effective and reduces harm. No one says “chromosomes change”; we say outcomes improve and lives stabilize. Language: “Cis” and “trans” are adjectives to distinguish types of the same category when relevant. They don’t replace “woman”; they clarify which group is being discussed. “Majority view”: you asserted “most people” think otherwise. Show data. Appeals to popularity aren’t evidence. We can be respectful and still be accurate. I’m describing how law and medicine actually operate. If you have contrary evidence from comparable authorities, post it. If not, this is belief vs. facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's your evidence that the majority of the general public feel that trans women are 'real' women? You've mentioned the Equality Act several times, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that "woman" refers to biological sex for the purposes of discrimination law. This makes it clear that trans women are not 'real' women from some legal viewpoints. How do you square that with your statement that the law has the view that trans women are 'real' women." That’s not what the Supreme Court said. The ruling was about how “sex” is interpreted within the Equality Act only, not about who is or isn’t a woman in general. It said the Act uses biological sex for discrimination claims, while confirming that trans people remain protected under the separate category of gender reassignment. Outside that narrow context — under the Gender Recognition Act, for example — trans women are still legally recognised as women. So it didn’t redefine womanhood; it clarified one statute’s wording. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are changing the definition. For most people around the world, the word "woman" always meant biological women. But that’s not true either — it’s an assumption about what the “common meaning” was, not a fact. The common meaning of woman has always referred just as much to gender as to sex. For as long as English has existed, the word has been used socially — to describe how a person lives and is recognised — not just biologically. That’s why we say a woman of science, a young woman, or a woman in public life — all gendered contexts, not reproductive ones. And the phrase “biological woman” doesn’t really hold up. Trans women are biological — every human is. What people usually mean is “someone whose sex characteristics at birth aligned with female norms,” but that’s not what “biological” means. So the term “biological woman” applies just as much to trans women as to cis women — both are women, both are biological. The definition of woman hasn’t changed; the ideology that tried to narrow it has." Utter rubbish. Biological sex is tge sex you are born with. The sex that is observed at birth. It's so simple to define that we have become the do.inant species on the planet. 7 billion of us exist because biological men have recognised biological woman and impregnated our female reproductive organs with their male sperms. So listen to what you are saying. If you believe what you say, your Mum might not have been a woman do you believe that. So let's take it tgat you are 100% right and Trans woman are really woman and Trans men are really men. So take it a step further and everyone on Earth decided to transition. How long would we survive as a species? No longer than 130 years. Thats because you cannot fulfil the one basic function that all life must fulfill. That of reproduction, passing on your genetic code. We'd all be dead. So is that what nature intended as we've been on this evolutionary journey? Of course its not. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter rubbish. Biological sex is tge sex you are born with. The sex that is observed at birth. It's so simple to define that we have become the do.inant species on the planet. 7 billion of us exist because biological men have recognised biological woman and impregnated our female reproductive organs with their male sperms. So listen to what you are saying. If you believe what you say, your Mum might not have been a woman do you believe that. So let's take it tgat you are 100% right and Trans woman are really woman and Trans men are really men. So take it a step further and everyone on Earth decided to transition. How long would we survive as a species? No longer than 130 years. Thats because you cannot fulfil the one basic function that all life must fulfill. That of reproduction, passing on your genetic code. We'd all be dead. So is that what nature intended as we've been on this evolutionary journey? Of course its not. Mrs x" That’s not an argument, it’s a thought experiment built on ideology. Reproduction isn’t the definition of womanhood — it’s the definition of fertility. Plenty of cis women can’t conceive or don’t want children. Are they “not women” by your logic? Gender describes how we live and relate, not whether our gametes meet someone else’s. If the ability to reproduce defined humanity, then post-menopausal women and infertile men would fall outside your “biological” category too — which clearly they don’t. Nature doesn’t assign social roles; people do. And trying to reduce human identity to breeding capacity is closer to animal husbandry than science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've said enough on this so you know my thoughts on this. However you also know I've said that nothing I've said has come from a position of superiority. You can call yourself whatever you want and thats fine, I've not disputed that. In 'real' life I wouldnt dream of calling you what you didnt want to be called. What I object to is not receiving the same respect in return. You claim its not the majority view, legal or scientific view but you dont supply and evidence that supports this. When you say majority do you mean the majority of the entire planet believe Trans people actually can change their sex? Where's the science that says this, so you are saying absolutely sex change is possible? On what basis neurological, psychological, anatomical even genetical? Go on show me the evidence please. Or maybe just agree to disagree and treat everyone nicely, with respect. Mrs x Your argument rests on two opinions: 1. “Trans women aren’t women.” 2. “Transition is about changing sex.” Both are ideological, not evidential. What transition is: treatment to reduce gender dysphoria and align body, role, and identity so people can live normally. Not everyone wants or needs surgery. Medicine treats distress; it doesn’t claim to rewrite chromosomes. Law: UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 protect trans women as women in most contexts. Harassing a trans woman by denying her gender can be unlawful. That’s not my belief; that’s statute and case law. Science/medicine: Major authorities (NHS, BPS, APA, WPATH, Endocrine Society) treat gender dysphoria as a real condition and find that gender-affirming care is effective and reduces harm. No one says “chromosomes change”; we say outcomes improve and lives stabilize. Language: “Cis” and “trans” are adjectives to distinguish types of the same category when relevant. They don’t replace “woman”; they clarify which group is being discussed. “Majority view”: you asserted “most people” think otherwise. Show data. Appeals to popularity aren’t evidence. We can be respectful and still be accurate. I’m describing how law and medicine actually operate. If you have contrary evidence from comparable authorities, post it. If not, this is belief vs. facts." If you think its not evidence, that a Trans man has female reproductive parts and Trans woman have male, thats not ideology. I'm not saying gender affirming care is not necessary, for those that need it, it is. What I'm challenging is your ascertain in absolutes. That once gender affirming treatment is given that changes someone's sex, it doesn't. Humanity would die out if everyone decide to transition for this one basic fact. 130 years and we'd all be gone. However if men and woman don't transition our population will continue to increase, not that that's necessarily a positive but at least humanity has a future. You post each post on threads like this as if you are going to war, Trans v Men & Woman. And saying something, like its the 'majority' view without defining this or supplying credible evidence is not strengthening your argument. Asking someone else to supply evidence to the contrary, without supplying any evidence yourself, is almost proof that you in fact do not have any evidence. Your binary position of Trans good, Men/Woman bad is more divisive than anything I've heard on here. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are changing the definition. For most people around the world, the word "woman" always meant biological women. But that’s not true either — it’s an assumption about what the “common meaning” was, not a fact. The common meaning of woman has always referred just as much to gender as to sex. " If we have a poll around the world, showed them a picture of someone with a penis and asked them to choose if it's a man or a woman or unknown, what do you think most will choose? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think its not evidence, that a Trans man has female reproductive parts and Trans woman have male, thats not ideology. I'm not saying gender affirming care is not necessary, for those that need it, it is. What I'm challenging is your ascertain in absolutes. That once gender affirming treatment is given that changes someone's sex, it doesn't. Humanity would die out if everyone decide to transition for this one basic fact. 130 years and we'd all be gone. However if men and woman don't transition our population will continue to increase, not that that's necessarily a positive but at least humanity has a future. You post each post on threads like this as if you are going to war, Trans v Men & Woman. And saying something, like its the 'majority' view without defining this or supplying credible evidence is not strengthening your argument. Asking someone else to supply evidence to the contrary, without supplying any evidence yourself, is almost proof that you in fact do not have any evidence. Your binary position of Trans good, Men/Woman bad is more divisive than anything I've heard on here. Mrs x" That’s a strawman — I’ve never said transition changes sex, nor that trans people are “good” and everyone else “bad.” Transition doesn’t rewrite chromosomes; it treats dysphoria so body and identity align. That’s recognised by every major medical authority worldwide. No one credible claims otherwise. And your “humanity will die out” argument is pure fantasy. Trans people make up less than one percent of the population, and most don’t have surgery that affects fertility. Many trans men can and do have children. The species isn’t under threat. As for evidence: – Law: The Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 both protect trans women as women in most contexts. – Science: The NHS, Endocrine Society, and World Health Organization all recognise gender dysphoria as real and affirm that gender-affirming care improves well-being. You keep saying this is about absolutes, but the only absolute here is yours — that trans women can never be women. That’s not science; it’s belief dressed as biology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter rubbish. Biological sex is tge sex you are born with. The sex that is observed at birth. It's so simple to define that we have become the do.inant species on the planet. 7 billion of us exist because biological men have recognised biological woman and impregnated our female reproductive organs with their male sperms. So listen to what you are saying. If you believe what you say, your Mum might not have been a woman do you believe that. So let's take it tgat you are 100% right and Trans woman are really woman and Trans men are really men. So take it a step further and everyone on Earth decided to transition. How long would we survive as a species? No longer than 130 years. Thats because you cannot fulfil the one basic function that all life must fulfill. That of reproduction, passing on your genetic code. We'd all be dead. So is that what nature intended as we've been on this evolutionary journey? Of course its not. Mrs x That’s not an argument, it’s a thought experiment built on ideology. Reproduction isn’t the definition of womanhood — it’s the definition of fertility. Plenty of cis women can’t conceive or don’t want children. Are they “not women” by your logic? Gender describes how we live and relate, not whether our gametes meet someone else’s. If the ability to reproduce defined humanity, then post-menopausal women and infertile men would fall outside your “biological” category too — which clearly they don’t. Nature doesn’t assign social roles; people do. And trying to reduce human identity to breeding capacity is closer to animal husbandry than science." I know plenty of woman can't conceive but Trans woman can't conceive, just like Trans men can't fertilise. So men & woman must be doing something right hahaha. Reproduction isn't a social role, its a biological necessity. Menopause is a natural process to stop woman going through rge trauma of childbirth at a certain age. It's decided by lots of factors, one being a set number of eggs each woman carries, unlike men they dont make eggs over and over online sperms. So a woman who has undergone menopause is definitely a woman as it only happens to woman, or Trans men. I'm not reducing anything to reproduction but that is literally the meaning of life, all life. Men & Woman are great at it, because they are designed to do so. 7 Billion pieces of evidence back this up. You say the funniest things hahaha haha, keep it up, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know plenty of woman can't conceive but Trans woman can't conceive, just like Trans men can't fertilise. So men & woman must be doing something right hahaha. Reproduction isn't a social role, its a biological necessity. Menopause is a natural process to stop woman going through rge trauma of childbirth at a certain age. It's decided by lots of factors, one being a set number of eggs each woman carries, unlike men they dont make eggs over and over online sperms. So a woman who has undergone menopause is definitely a woman as it only happens to woman, or Trans men. I'm not reducing anything to reproduction but that is literally the meaning of life, all life. Men & Woman are great at it, because they are designed to do so. 7 Billion pieces of evidence back this up. You say the funniest things hahaha haha, keep it up, Mrs x" You seem to think existence is a breeding program. If reproduction defined humanity, anyone infertile would stop being human. Evolution gave us empathy, creativity, and self-awareness too — reducing people to gametes isn’t biology, it’s bad philosophy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think its not evidence, that a Trans man has female reproductive parts and Trans woman have male, thats not ideology. I'm not saying gender affirming care is not necessary, for those that need it, it is. What I'm challenging is your ascertain in absolutes. That once gender affirming treatment is given that changes someone's sex, it doesn't. Humanity would die out if everyone decide to transition for this one basic fact. 130 years and we'd all be gone. However if men and woman don't transition our population will continue to increase, not that that's necessarily a positive but at least humanity has a future. You post each post on threads like this as if you are going to war, Trans v Men & Woman. And saying something, like its the 'majority' view without defining this or supplying credible evidence is not strengthening your argument. Asking someone else to supply evidence to the contrary, without supplying any evidence yourself, is almost proof that you in fact do not have any evidence. Your binary position of Trans good, Men/Woman bad is more divisive than anything I've heard on here. Mrs x That’s a strawman — I’ve never said transition changes sex, nor that trans people are “good” and everyone else “bad.” Transition doesn’t rewrite chromosomes; it treats dysphoria so body and identity align. That’s recognised by every major medical authority worldwide. No one credible claims otherwise. And your “humanity will die out” argument is pure fantasy. Trans people make up less than one percent of the population, and most don’t have surgery that affects fertility. Many trans men can and do have children. The species isn’t under threat. As for evidence: – Law: The Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 both protect trans women as women in most contexts. – Science: The NHS, Endocrine Society, and World Health Organization all recognise gender dysphoria as real and affirm that gender-affirming care improves well-being. You keep saying this is about absolutes, but the only absolute here is yours — that trans women can never be women. That’s not science; it’s belief dressed as biology." You are either challenged, obtuse or just desperate to prove a ridiculous point. I've said gender affirming treatment is needed for certain people. Not an argument from me. What I do say is that it takes 1 woman and 1 man to reproduce naturally. Thats a fact. You mention that Trans men get pregnant but not without medical assistance if they have transitioned fully. I'm aware that tge scenario I laid out is pure fantasy but its just to illustrate that Trans people are not Men or Woman they are Trans men and Trans woman and that they cannot reproduce naturally, following the exact same process as men & woman. I did this to prove a factual point about whether your absolute position, that Trans women are actually women is false and vice versa for Trans men. Whether you like it or not, if everyone did transition, its goodnight Vienna for mankind. You can call this ideology, whatever, I call it common sense. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we have a poll around the world, showed them a picture of someone with a penis and asked them to choose if it's a man or a woman or unknown, what do you think most will choose?" If you show someone a photo of a penis then by default people would reply based on biological sex not gender. The lack of sophistication in your arguments is not surprising seeing that you think an engineer is simply anyone who builds things. Gender and sex aren't the same. Just like left-right and liberal-conservative dimensions in politics aren't the same. They are often aligned but there isn't a one-to-one relationship. The words woman and man are not aligned with biological sex in a one-to-one relationship either. This is totally obvious in a male dominated society where the word man can refer to both men and women. The word women is just as fluid and although by default it refers to biological sex it doesn't exclude the trans woman. Just as the word man doesn't exclude the trans man. Although to anyone who doesn't think an electric guitar is a guitar such subtle use of language could be a challenge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know plenty of woman can't conceive but Trans woman can't conceive, just like Trans men can't fertilise. So men & woman must be doing something right hahaha. Reproduction isn't a social role, its a biological necessity. Menopause is a natural process to stop woman going through rge trauma of childbirth at a certain age. It's decided by lots of factors, one being a set number of eggs each woman carries, unlike men they dont make eggs over and over online sperms. So a woman who has undergone menopause is definitely a woman as it only happens to woman, or Trans men. I'm not reducing anything to reproduction but that is literally the meaning of life, all life. Men & Woman are great at it, because they are designed to do so. 7 Billion pieces of evidence back this up. You say the funniest things hahaha haha, keep it up, Mrs x You seem to think existence is a breeding program. If reproduction defined humanity, anyone infertile would stop being human. Evolution gave us empathy, creativity, and self-awareness too — reducing people to gametes isn’t biology, it’s bad philosophy." You can increase population size with empathy, creativity and self awareness can't you, omg my sides... please stop. Existence is a breeding programme haha, no its just the most important purpose humanity has. Bad philosophy, please, just common sense. If reproduction isn't the number one purpose in life, tell me what else is? (This should be good haha) Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If reproduction isn't the number one purpose in life, tell me what else is? (This should be good haha) Mrs x" If reproduction is the “purpose of life,” then books, art, science, and compassion must all be mistakes. Thankfully, humanity aims higher than biology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's your evidence that the majority of the general public feel that trans women are 'real' women?" I notice that you've failed to answer this question. "You've mentioned the Equality Act several times, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that "woman" refers to biological sex for the purposes of discrimination law. This makes it clear that trans women are not 'real' women from some legal viewpoints. How do you square that with your statement that the law has the view that trans women are 'real' women." "That’s not what the Supreme Court said." It is what they said. They said that in the very narrow context of discrimination based on sex as defined in the Equalities Act, "woman" means "biological woman". "The ruling was about how “sex” is interpreted within the Equality Act only, not about who is or isn’t a woman in general." Correct. "It said the Act uses biological sex for discrimination claims, while confirming that trans people remain protected under the separate category of gender reassignment." It didn't confirm trans peoples rights. The ruling didn't mention them at all. The rest of the Equality Act is not affected, so that means that trans people are still protected from being discriminated against on the basis of their trans-hood. That doesn't mean that they are immune from criticism, it just means that I can't treat you differently to the way I treat others. For example - I refer to my team at work as "chaps", even though half of them are women. If you objected to this, you would have no case under the Equalities Act. "Outside that narrow context — under the Gender Recognition Act, for example — trans women are still legally recognised as women." Agreed. But if some parts of the law say that trans women don't count as 'real' women, then clearly trans women are different to 'real' women. How do you come to the conclusion that the law fully endorses the idea that trans women are 'real' women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If reproduction isn't the number one purpose in life, tell me what else is? (This should be good haha) Mrs x If reproduction is the “purpose of life,” then books, art, science, and compassion must all be mistakes. Thankfully, humanity aims higher than biology." Primordial ooze didnt read or write, didnt compose music or poetry but it was successful in the one purpose of all life. It reproduced, multiplied. Every subsequent species has done this, those that were successful at this thrived. So using your logic does that mean those people who are illiterate, or mentally disabled people are not human because they cannot take part in books, art and science. Thats a bit mean isn't it. Humans developed these things over millions of years as we evolved, but we only got to this position because woman fucked men, got pregnant and had kids to ensure the existence of humanity otherwise we'd have gone the way of Trilobites and none of the things you mentioned would have come into being. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So using your logic does that mean those people who are illiterate, or mentally disabled people are not human because they cannot take part in books, art and science. Thats a bit mean isn't it. " Wow... it would be mean if I were to say that. Thankfully I didn't. What would be meaner is saying that because someone is illiterate or disabled they are incapable of enjoying those things. In fact it wouldn't only be mean it would be ableist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nortyair nobody has said that trans women have ovaries or wombs. What you seem to think is a gotcha is just you not engaging with the distinction between your understanding of gender and other peoples' understanding of gender. " Isn't gender a social construct, whereas sex is biological? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Isn't gender a social construct, whereas sex is biological? Mrs x" Yes — exactly. Gender is a social construct, and sex is biological. That’s why “man” and “woman” describe gendered social roles, while “male” and “female” describe reproductive anatomy. No one is claiming to change chromosomes; they’re saying their lived gender doesn’t match the sex they were assigned. Recognising that distinction isn’t ideology — it’s just using words accurately. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Isn't gender a social construct, whereas sex is biological? Mrs x" Yes, I think so. And the terms man and women can refer to both gender and biological sex, so saying that they only apply to biological sex seems to be ignoring the concept of gender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is the percentage of females that feels unsafe when there is a person in possession of a tiddler in their toilets/changing room?" Not really a fair question. The honest answer is probably very low, because in most cases cis women don’t even realise trans women are there. And if we’re talking about people entering toilets for other reasons, that’s already covered by harassment and assault laws — and overwhelmingly committed by cis men, not trans women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So using your logic does that mean those people who are illiterate, or mentally disabled people are not human because they cannot take part in books, art and science. Thats a bit mean isn't it. Wow... it would be mean if I were to say that. Thankfully I didn't. What would be meaner is saying that because someone is illiterate or disabled they are incapable of enjoying those things. In fact it wouldn't only be mean it would be ableist." What??? Hahaha, being illiterate means you cannot read. Books and science are going to be a challenge for them, that's not able Israel its realism. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What??? Hahaha, being illiterate means you cannot read. Books and science are going to be a challenge for them, that's not able Israel its realism. Mrs x" It’s not realism to assume inability — it’s ignorance of accessibility. People who can’t read text can still listen to audiobooks. People with physical disabilities create art using adaptive tools. People with learning differences do science every day. Accessibility doesn’t erase limitation; it expands inclusion. That’s the part you keep missing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Isn't gender a social construct, whereas sex is biological? Mrs x Yes, I think so. And the terms man and women can refer to both gender and biological sex, so saying that they only apply to biological sex seems to be ignoring the concept of gender." I'm saying the sex of a person is biological not a social construct. To be a woman means you are a biological woman. Such a woman, born as a woman at birth can be any gender they choose. But the defo ing feature of someone's sex is biology, you are either born a man or a woman, you cannot be made into one, whether this is by you changing your gender yourself or through medical or surgical intervention. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What??? Hahaha, being illiterate means you cannot read. Books and science are going to be a challenge for them, that's not able Israel its realism. Mrs x It’s not realism to assume inability — it’s ignorance of accessibility. People who can’t read text can still listen to audiobooks. People with physical disabilities create art using adaptive tools. People with learning differences do science every day. Accessibility doesn’t erase limitation; it expands inclusion. That’s the part you keep missing." Yes you are quite right, so what about primordial ooze, could they do any of this? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes you are quite right, so what about primordial ooze, could they do any of this? Mrs x" Wow, the level of reach you’re going to in order to validate your argument is something else. Evolution happens — that’s exactly the point. We’re not primordial ooze anymore. Life started with replication because that’s what single-celled organisms do. But we evolved into sentient beings capable of defining our own purpose. You sound like one of those people who thinks it’s morally wrong for anyone to choose not to have kids — as if autonomy stopped being part of evolution somewhere along the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying the sex of a person is biological not a social construct. To be a woman means you are a biological woman. Such a woman, born as a woman at birth can be any gender they choose. But the defo ing feature of someone's sex is biology, you are either born a man or a woman, you cannot be made into one, whether this is by you changing your gender yourself or through medical or surgical intervention. Mrs x" Nobody has said that sex isn't biological. What we are trying to get over to you is that gender is slightly different to biological sex and not alway 100% aligned and that the terms man and woman can be used in both sex and gender contexts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying the sex of a person is biological not a social construct. To be a woman means you are a biological woman. Such a woman, born as a woman at birth can be any gender they choose. But the defo ing feature of someone's sex is biology, you are either born a man or a woman, you cannot be made into one, whether this is by you changing your gender yourself or through medical or surgical intervention. Mrs x" Yeah — that’s because you’re conflating woman as a gender term with woman being used as a stand-in for female. “Woman” is about social and personal identity — the role someone lives and is recognised in. “Female” is about biological classification. Trans women are women because gender is lived and experienced, not assigned by anatomy. No one’s claiming to rewrite chromosomes — just to be recognised in the gender they actually are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying the sex of a person is biological not a social construct. To be a woman means you are a biological woman. Such a woman, born as a woman at birth can be any gender they choose. But the defo ing feature of someone's sex is biology, you are either born a man or a woman, you cannot be made into one, whether this is by you changing your gender yourself or through medical or surgical intervention. Mrs x Nobody has said that sex isn't biological. What we are trying to get over to you is that gender is slightly different to biological sex and not alway 100% aligned and that the terms man and woman can be used in both sex and gender contexts. " It's not slightly aligned. It's a social construct. You can choose to be gender fluid, you cannot be sex fluid. Men and women can be used in lots of terms you are correct. But Trans men are not men, and vice versa for woman. You need biology for this, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, I finally got round to reading the article referenced above. First, I just want to say that that is probably the worse piece of journalism I have ever read. The statistics, however, do make a very good headline for the publication. Whenever I see the statistics I am always reminded of that episode of Yes, Minister (maybe Prime Minister) in in which Humphrey explains how polls can be rigged by the questions asked. I am not suggesting the statistics are untrue... I am more saying I have little faith in the findings of ANY poll. In this instance - did the poll give a definition of 'unsafe'? Many now say they feel unsafe when faced with an opinion that differs from their own. My daughter works alongside a man who feels unsafe when people do not use 'cis' when referring to someone who is not trans. No-one should face any abuse (verbal or physical) simply because they are trans. I assuming that those polled were targeted because they are trans and not just victims who happen to be trans or non-binary. The article does not make it clear. I think my issue here is with that article...not with anything else. LOL. I Think maybe I should look for a different source before contributing further. Lol " YouGov is generally well-regarded for transparency and consistency in its polling methods, which is why it’s so often cited by both media and researchers. I can’t link the exact questionnaire for this specific poll, but YouGov’s results are typically weighted and reviewed to match population data, which makes their figures a reasonable indicator of broader trends. Even allowing for some variation in how people interpret “unsafe,” the scale of the response still points to a clear pattern — trans people face far higher levels of hostility than the general population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not slightly aligned. It's a social construct. You can choose to be gender fluid, you cannot be sex fluid. Men and women can be used in lots of terms you are correct. But Trans men are not men, and vice versa for woman. You need biology for this, Mrs x" In gender terms trans women are women and trans men are men. If you can't accept this then fine. Nobody is trying to force you to use language in the same way as they do. Ultimately what matters is when people like yourself try to influence what happens to trans people in the real world. So for instance if you are going to insist than trans women use mens toilets and trans men use women toilets then people like myself will politely point out how problematic this would be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not slightly aligned. It's a social construct. You can choose to be gender fluid, you cannot be sex fluid. Men and women can be used in lots of terms you are correct. But Trans men are not men, and vice versa for woman. You need biology for this, Mrs x" And I recognise that that’s your opinion. I, like science, disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not slightly aligned. It's a social construct. You can choose to be gender fluid, you cannot be sex fluid. Men and women can be used in lots of terms you are correct. But Trans men are not men, and vice versa for woman. You need biology for this, Mrs x In gender terms trans women are women and trans men are men. If you can't accept this then fine. Nobody is trying to force you to use language in the same way as they do. Ultimately what matters is when people like yourself try to influence what happens to trans people in the real world. So for instance if you are going to insist than trans women use mens toilets and trans men use women toilets then people like myself will politely point out how problematic this would be. " Go and look at any such threads and see if I've ever tried to influence anyone how to live their lives. I believe in gender affirming care. What I dont believe is that Transition affords a change of reality, so that a male from birth can be an actual female, either through changing gender or through medical or surgical assistance. I've also said that my beliefs are not based on any concept of superiority. No matter what our beliefs on gender, sex, religion, politics, whatever we are all human and deserve respect. This means that if I genuinely upset someone then I would apologise. I would do so unequivocally and without using a 'but' to excuse my behaviour. Unfortunately this is not always reciprocated and what grinds my gears is were someone has been told that they have been offensive, then explain why they havent and transfer any blame onto the other person. You know, the apology were somebody says sorry that you feel upset about x,y or z. Thats not an apology. Nobody is an arbitor of outrage on here, offence is the premise of the offended not the offender. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. " It's totally unnecessary. I am a woman, all woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not slightly aligned. It's a social construct. You can choose to be gender fluid, you cannot be sex fluid. Men and women can be used in lots of terms you are correct. But Trans men are not men, and vice versa for woman. You need biology for this, Mrs x And I recognise that that’s your opinion. I, like science, disagree." Pmsl now. You need to sit down before you hurt yourself. You quote science but dont cite anything but that's not surprising considering the lies you post on the other thread in relation to citation. Maybe you should read up on The cross-species consistency argument. This believes sex is biological. The WHO also advocates this position when they say “...[s]ex refers to ‘the different BIOLOGICAL and physiological characteristics of females and males, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs, etc.’” “Gender refers to ‘the socially constructed characteristics of women and men — such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.’” But maybe they aren't a sufficiently plausible authority for you. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. It's totally unnecessary. I am a woman, all woman." Another one agrees with us, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Go and look at any such threads and see if I've ever tried to influence anyone how to live their lives. I believe in gender affirming care. What I dont believe is that Transition affords a change of reality, so that a male from birth can be an actual female, either through changing gender or through medical or surgical assistance. I've also said that my beliefs are not based on any concept of superiority. No matter what our beliefs on gender, sex, religion, politics, whatever we are all human and deserve respect. This means that if I genuinely upset someone then I would apologise. I would do so unequivocally and without using a 'but' to excuse my behaviour. Unfortunately this is not always reciprocated and what grinds my gears is were someone has been told that they have been offensive, then explain why they havent and transfer any blame onto the other person. You know, the apology were somebody says sorry that you feel upset about x,y or z. Thats not an apology. Nobody is an arbitor of outrage on here, offence is the premise of the offended not the offender. Mrs x" So just to be clear, are saying that your arguments have no practical ramifications and that you are not suggesting any change such as trans women using the gents toilets and trans men using the ladies toilets? And you are deeply offended by the use of the word cis and expect an apology from anyone using it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we have a poll around the world, showed them a picture of someone with a penis and asked them to choose if it's a man or a woman or unknown, what do you think most will choose? If you show someone a photo of a penis then by default people would reply based on biological sex not gender. The lack of sophistication in your arguments is not surprising seeing that you think an engineer is simply anyone who builds things. " For someone who didn't even know the meaning of software engineering and pretended to be one for decades just because you wrote IPC code in Java, something which we did as an assignment in our university over a weekend, you must have some ego to bring that topic again. Have you informed Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg that they don't the meaning of software engineering yet? " Gender and sex aren't the same. Just like left-right and liberal-conservative dimensions in politics aren't the same. They are often aligned but there isn't a one-to-one relationship. " In your opinion, yes. For most people, it's the same. " The words woman and man are not aligned with biological sex in a one-to-one relationship either. " According to you, yes. But for most people, they are aligned. You wouldn't have to waste my time if you read my argument clearly before making these posts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find the term cis offensive. It's totally unnecessary. I am a woman, all woman." Exactly this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What we are trying to get over to you is that gender is slightly different to biological sex and not alway 100% aligned and that the terms man and woman can be used in both sex and gender contexts. " If you are going to tell people sex and gender are different, you also have to tell people when exactly sex should be used and when exactly gender should be used. Again, it boils down to a problem of language | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
