To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

We'll still be waiting in ooh ,I dunno, 84 years or so, I expect.

I'm still waiting to hear how we tell the difference between a biological man and a biological man who identifies as not a man so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Such a shame that she had to leave right at the moment when she could have enlightened us all about what the fuck it is.

So you’ll be able to produce this ‘evidence’ of ‘gender’ existing then? Oh, no - you suddenly need to leave. Maybe you’ll have it when you get back?

The only good Terf is a good Terf?

The brass fucking neck of these people who think they know more about the law than Supreme Court judges, eh?

No, I'm afraid that thanks to the ridiculous demands of the trans rights lobby, being pro trans is completely incompatible with being a feminist, even if you believe you identify as one.

Funny how none of the people who insist that gender identity is real can explain what the fuck it is, huh.

I'll let you make your convenient exit.

It appears to be both those things. How come you think you know better?

I do not have any respect for those beliefs at all, I am afraid and I am not prepared to pretend that I do.

Well that could get you into deep water, given that gender critical beliefs have been declared in law to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. I mean, you're free to hold your prejudicial beliefs, but you may need to be careful that you're not acting upon them, in any way that might be construed as discrimination.

It is not my fault that the trans rights lobby deliberately decided to position "trans rights" in direct conflict with women's rights

The most ironic statement I have ever read. It is quite the other way around.

I am a feminist. Just one who acknowledges trans people, and is ok with them too.

Being trans has nothing more in common with religious belief than being gay does - or being female does for that matter.

Saying that there is "no evidence" that gender exists is like saying that there is no evidence that evolution exists, or gravity, or that the earth is spherical. I can't help you.

On that note, I do have better things to be doing with my time. Take care y'all.

I am not anti trans, I am a feminist.

It is not my fault that the trans rights lobby deliberately decided to position "trans rights" in direct conflict with women's rights and now it has finally bitten them on the bum.

Belief in gender identity is a religious belief as far as I am concerned. I am sure it is very real to the people who believe they have one, but there is no actual evidence that it exists.

And damn right I object to language which supposedly describes me but in a way that says, "yeah yeah but anyway trans people exist".

thank you

I don't have any religious beliefs.

You have some very strong anti-trans beliefs which causes you to object to language which simply acknowledges the presence/ exis.tence of trans people

I do not have any respect for those beliefs at all, I am afraid and I am not prepared to pretend that I do.

So no? You are not a discrimination specialist KC.

But you dismiss the interpretations of those specialists, including the PM who is a human rights specialist KC.

I believe it has already been posted, but here is another link : and it discusses the judgement below.

https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex

The Supreme Court also addressed the position of those who “pass” as members of the opposite sex and whether they could be excluded from single-sex services intended for their natal sex, as is the case with those trans men who are biologically female but, having taken testosterone, have masculinised their appearance [221]:

“Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.”

This means that trans men do not have a legal entitlement to use male-only facilities because they are female and may some times be lawfully excluded from female-only facilities because they appear male. The only prudent solution in those situations is for service providers to offer a separate service for transgender people.

Yep you are right lost

Your side of this row has got 15 years' worth of empathy failures to make up for.

It is certainly not my side of this row that is having the serious empathy fail

i have the patience of a saint

but women who have been rape have been told to ‘reframe’ their trauma so posters can fuck right off with their ‘empathy’ bollocks

No it is not lawful to arbitrarily discriminate against the extremely rare 'passing' transperson.

It is lawful to discriminate against them for a legitimate reason, ie that they are a transman who has modified their bodies so much that the could be taken for a man, by women who would be distressed by the presence of a man, eg in a rape support group.

This has been been explained to you.

It doesn't describe anything. It's a nonsense word designed to make women a subcategory of their own sex.

Please have some respect for those of us who don't share your religious beliefs.

Sorry to be rude but I would have replied to the initial question “have you been tested”, I would have said “no, have you been tested for being a c*nt?”

Interestingly there are other people that exist in the world apart from trans people.

We are talking about extremely rare scenarios with a combination of a single sex service, vulnerable service users and a trans person that ‘passes’ to the extent that it could cause distress.

Theres a strong likelihood here that the only people affected are the mythical hairy butch ‘transmen’ friends of trans activists that no one has ever seen and if they do exist, are a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (trans) of the population.

So the above scenario will happen once in a blue moon - you don’t need to worry quite as much as you are. Maybe take some time out to process.

If you are offended by perfectly ordinary, descriptive and inclusive language because of your attitudes about trans people, it's really not of my concern.

It is, however, my concern not to break the mumsent talk guidelines. I was told it was acceptable to use the word as long as it is not directed personally at another user. If I am wrong about that I am happy to desist.

It is certainly not my side of this row that is having the serious empathy fail.

Lots of us are offended by it so please desist.

Exactly this.

It can't be said enough that passing trans men have been finding solutions to all of this for a while now which generally don't involve using single sex toilets for either sex. Because they don't want to make women uncomfortable and they don't want to make themselves unsafe.

Those trans men could stand to benefit hugely if more spaces which are accessible to them are created as a result of the Supreme Court judgment.

It's really only trans women who don't appear to give a shit about the impact of their presence in a single sex space for women.