How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

Because its not a sex based category its an open category.

Serena Williams is an exceptional tennis player, she has rewritten how women's tennis is played. Yet even she admits that she wouldn't rank in the top 200 male players.

Yet a mediocre male swimmer ranked 462 became the number 1 NCAA swimmer beating Olympic ranked female swimmers.

How can you possibly think that is fair?

This is going in circles. I think when someone quotes you or publicly supports you, you should oppose support from them because you care about the danger that person represents to women's rights. Some people don't do that because they want the support of those people's followers.
They don't have to do anything and can just go about their business but they shouldn't profess to champion women's rights and certainly they shouldn't be looked up to by feminists.

I didn't say they couldn't. I'm saying if we go down the route of insisting on solely sex based categories with no other creative solutions, how could they continue to compete against men?

@Lampy123678 Right so my point that many prominent GC campaigners have associations that aren't in the best interest for women's rights as I said then? You don't agree that they should oppose that?

Accusations aren't the same as associations.
We do see GC campaigners deny, debunk and address various accusations, but equally they shouldn't have to dignify every batshit claim made about them with z response.

Because you always focus on trans women. It's boring and it's lazy. Transmen exist too and they're of the biological sex you care about but you don't focus on them much which is odd. And they're apparently doing what you are arguing against which is biological women competing against biological males which is apparently totally unfair regardless and could never be categorised to be fair. So Danny Baker should have to fight women in this sex based sport ideal? I think it's a lazy argument that biological sex is all that matters for competing in sport and it would imply Danny has no chance competing against biological males. I think it's interesting to listen to his comments as he doesn't blindly support people competing in categories they wish to and he actually has some interesting advice regarding the categorisation and has opposed some trans women competing in women's categories.

Transmen can compete against men, again most male categories are open, this is how women can play in them. Some transmen may require a certification for their medication.

But they can compete.

If a transman wanted to compete against other men, we can establish a fair way to do that without telling them they can't compete or that they have to compete against women

What if a transabled person wanted to compete against disabled athletes? Would you also be trying to 'establish a fair way to do that'? Or would you tell them to give their head a wobble and compete in their appropriate category like everybody else?

Why have you suddenly pivoted to talking about "trans men" when "trans women" are the problem?

The science is not clear. Perhaps if you leave your echo chamber you could listen to some intelligent scientists debate the possibilities. If a transman wanted to compete against other men, we can establish a fair way to do that without telling them they can't compete or that they have to compete against women and the arguments that would come from that and if they would need to alter their medication. We have expanded sports so much in their history, we have invented numerous categories to establish fairer yet still interesting competition. I think saying we can't do the same with trans people is lazy. We need more categories. We can't just come up against an issue and say "nah we're sorting that".

Right so my point that many prominent GC campaigners have associations that aren't in the best interest for women's rights as I said then? You don't agree that they should oppose that?

Abusive men that are your friends are also abusive men, sorry. When we stay their friends and buy their yachts after women have accused them of abuse, that's support. We don't know why she supported him. We don't know why she sent Marilyn Manon a bunch of flowers after he was publicly accused of SA either. It's her business but again I don't think she should be held as some sort of champion for women's rights if she believes women until they accuse a famous friend.

The science is clear. There is no argument for trans people who were registered male at birth to compete in women's sporting categories other than "because they want to".

My understanding is that she supports the legal limit for abortion for non medical reasons being 22 weeks, which is later than every other country in Europe except the Netherlands. I think you're being rather disingenuous.

@Lampy123678 but as for your response to me...

The fact that no one guessed the baseless accusations in your head were centered around Helen Joyce, and not JKR, Keen, or any other GC figure, is evidence of nothing but your vagueness. Many of us are aware of these accusations, you're hardly the first person to go online and try to link people arguing for women's rights with nazis.

I don't know much about the Depp situation, I know he protested his innocence and JKR initially believed him, but this was before all the details emerged in the court case. I think not believing a friend or colleague was guilty of abuse is a very different thing to "supporting abusers". And I think that's a gross mischaracteriation to aim at someone who has done so much work for women's charities.

Sorry, it was the OP that mentioned STEM and stereotypes.

Except some people want them to compete based on sex. Some don't. There needs to be a better discussion than just arguing those two points back and forth. We have had to adapt sports categorisation many times over the years to keep establishing fairness. I choose to believe we can do this with trans sportspeople.

I agreed with you there should be single sex spaces of all of those things for those that want them. For crisis centres in particular I think we should have a multitude of options available for victims. That we don't is a funding issue, not a trans people existing issue. Voting for example for the Tories who don't want to fund public services, isn't going to help make these things happen.

I'm not sure what you are referencing with the STEM thing as I haven't mentioned STEM.

@Lampy123678 you're right I skim read your post and responded to a sentence in the middle that wasn't your actual argument. I apologise.

Huh?

I don't even know what you're saying now. Don't take one sentence of my post out of context. I didn't say that was their argument 🥴 And what opponent? I thought I was having a discussion with the poster so I'm not sure why you are butting I'm in some kind of fight and that I said that was their argument?

You didn't wanna respond to my response to you so I'm not sure why you're inserting yourself to add nothing here.

No-one is stopping trans people from playing professional sports, people just want them to play against their own sex where applicable. And adhere to the doping rules, (FYI you can get certified for certain trans drugs that allow trans people to keep using them).
Most male sports are actually open category sports.
And the attempt at a trans category failed as no trans people signed up to it.

The medical issue it seems to me is about checks and measures. So those transitioning fully understand what they are getting themselves in to. It is a lifetime of being dependant on drugs. With many other health issues thrown in on the side. But that is of course if they choose to transition beyond wearing the opposite sex's clothes and living the life (whatever that means).

What sex rights are being impinged upon? any where there should be a single sex space, rape centres, hospitals, changing rooms, toilets, support groups etc. the list goes on. Just because you give consent for a transwoman to be there doesn't mean that all women give consent for transwomen to be there.
In many cases having a transwoman there will prevent a woman from getting the help that they need.

And just to point out about women in STEM not happening because of stereotypes, the biggest promoter of stereotypes seems to be IMHO the new breed of transwomen themselves.

@Lampy123678
I don't think a blanket "trans people can't play professional sports" is fair mostly because I think it's lazy

And speaking of lazy. That's the laziest straw man argument I've read for a while.
You say we need to be more intelligent than this, yet you steadfastly refuse to even attempt to understand your opponents' argument.

Well obviously women taking drugs to induce lactation or I wouldn't have used it as a comparison.

I'm not the one jumping to extremes considering I was responding to someone asking if I supported women taking Crystal meth.

You've written a very long post but I'm not really sure what your point is or if it's even in disagreement with mine. Do you believe a patient should have bodily autonomy or not? Do you believe their care should be guided by medical advice and that they should make their own informed decisions? Do you believe the state should intervene at the same threshold that they would with non trans parents? If you disagree, then you believe trans people shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and then they aren't rights at all.

She doesn't support decriminalising abortion so yes, I'd say she is.

Regarding sports, personally I think we are more intelligent than we're acting. We're too busy engaging in the culture war perpetuated by right wing political parties when we could be having creative and intelligent discussions about how everyone can compete in sports fairly particularly women considering we have been excluded from some sports historically. I don't think a blanket "trans people can't play professional sports" is fair mostly because I think it's lazy. We have people smart enough to figure it out but we can't get there when people supporting women to be protected in sport can be interpreted as bigoted because the same people calling for it are courting bigots.

Regarding healthcare, I agree however there are feminists arguing this should be a later age for trans healthcare than is already the age of competency for other healthcare. I think that's dangerous.

It depends on how you feel sex based rights are infringing tbh? What I have seen mostly is people mentioning safety issues and desperate spaces which I think are being perpetuated by a lack of funding to the justice system, probation services and obviously a lack of funding the the healthcare system which simply cannot afford to accommodate everyone fairly when the right wing government isn't funding them.

Jumping to the extreme of every argument is silly and childish.

In the real world we pragmatically balance conflicting wants, needs and harms to get the best overall outcome. Therefore, while we can have principles a decision made in one context often does not translate automatically to others. Each one needs to be informed by principle but also considered in its own right.

So, dealing with your questions individually:

biological women who are adoptive parents shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed

Before I answer, can you clarify whether you mean women who are already lactating or have induced naturally, or do you mean women taking drugs to induce lactation?

What about women who smoke?

Is smoking and breastfeeding better or worse for the baby than not breastfeeding at all?

should these children be taken into care?

Again this will depend on the context and the degree of harm to the child. Education and support is always preferred. But if a child is considered at severe risk they can and sometimes are taken into care. I doubt smoking would ever be considered bad enough that the harm to the child justifies the harm of removing the child from its mother altogether, although of course that is partly because smoking is still somewhat normalised. (It would be interesting to know how it would be treated if it were a new thing just arising now, but that's a whole other thread)

How do we stop it?

Again context specific depending on the immediate risk, but expectation, education and support would be the preference. In my life I've seen both breastfeeding rates go up and smoking go down not through draconian interventions but through education and support.

Do you see? The black and white mindset says "if we think it's wrong we have to ban if. If we can't ban it it has to be ok for people to choose it". It's a false dichotomy. We can say "this isn't ok, we don't support it or condone it, these are the reasons why, how can we help.you stop it?"

But that's for things already happening. If something harmful isn't yet popularised and normalised and society has the chance to stop it, why would we not do that?

Where less rights will exist for us females in the future to do subjects such as STEM or be Astronaut because of the stereotyping happening from suppose feminists who's concepts are the old typical stay at home leave the male to do the dangerous or go to work mentally

As a fellow female and Suppose Feminist, I can confirm that us feminine female feminists are all working very hard to ensure all fellow females stay at home and leave the manly male work to the mentally manly men.