Reframing the discussion

But the question posed was: whose rights should take precedence, women's or trans people?

And that's just a bullshit misrepresentation of the issue of contention.

I suspect that for certain demographics, that's a VERY effective and compelling way to start the discussion, although I haven't tried it yet on anyone (and I'm itching to!). My theory is that it forces "woke" liberals to notice they are prioritizing one competing interest group over another.

My next point would be to talk about how women are negatively impacted, obv. Because, liberals tend to process the subject in the same way that conservatives used to process colonialism -- they would always forget to ask how the victims felt about the colonizers.

As soon as we remember that we need to ask how the colonized feel about bio males in spaces where women are vulnerable and/or naked, AND that we need to deal with their concerns in a respectful manner, the whole thing falls apart. Or at least we get a major sea-change regarding how the debate is framed.

Liberals should be horrified that anyone "on their team" favors silencing debate, silencing dissent, silencing objections, silencing concerns. That is just not how healthy people operate -- and please remember, liberals PRIDE themselves on possessing an enlightened and altruistic rationalism. As such, they should be appalled by the persistent efforts to rely on thought terminating cliches and the repetitive brainwashing slogans instead of reasoned discussion.

I feel a need to respond to one or two points.To rivertam, thank you for your support and so eloquently put that I am delusional, a liar and deceitful. Needless to say, you won't be on my Xmas card list.
To pastabest, the law doesn't actually state that a man can now become a woman. Under the GRA it states that for all intents and purposes, a person becomes a member of the opposite sex. This is just legalese to give someone like me, legal protection. It doesn't make me a biological woman, that cannot happen, no matter how much I wish otherwise.
For those who gave their support, accept my thanks, and I would have liked to have apologised for all the trouble trans people have created, but I can't as these people enjoy the discord they are creating.

Depends on if we still have the HRA and or are still under the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

Both are targets for the far right.

Touching on the faith-based argument factor - if the state forces me to believe a man is a woman and vice versa, what is my legal recourse? Surely I should be able to ask that they at least prove it?

For me it's not really about the trans stuff it's about basic safeguarding and preventing shoddy lawmaking.

This.

It's rule of law stuff.

The machinery of the system. Its already failed in one area. Thats why the times is involved in the way it is. They get its not simply about trans issues anymore at all.

Women need to calmly state, over and over, that a male belief in being a woman does not make them one and has nothing to do with us.
This. Not our problem. We can sympathise, but we're not duty-bound to fix their issues.
If the state can declare that a man is a woman, without any scientific evidence that a woman can have a penis, then it can say anything. It can say that the Earth is flat, or that it's 6,000 years old, or that there is a god and we all have to worship him. It is actually dangerous to give the state the power to redefine reality.
And that is a bloody good point.

Resonant frequency will blow things even more open. I think reframing will evolve naturally around that.

We'll see how it goes, it could yet go either way. I don't necessarily share Lisa Muggeridge's optimistic view on it.

I am worried about how crazy this gets now tbh. Lisa has touched on it. I've seen some utterly crazy stuff with online gaming, and this all resembles that pattern in a very similar way. If what I've witnessed with that is anything to go by, we haven't seen anything yet. I'm going to try not to reflect too much on that right now.

It's scary. Like scary scary.

I've found that moving the focus away from 'trans people' and purely focusing on the the fact that the government is considering changing the law so that anyone who says they are a woman can legally become one and therefore access any female only spaces usually gets people round to the anti self ID way of thinking fairly efficiently.

For anyone still unsure the words 'Ian Huntley' usually bring them round.

For me it's not really about the trans stuff it's about basic safeguarding and preventing shoddy lawmaking.

allana001

I think the vast majority agree with you. The GRA is doing what it was meant to do.

The motives and objectives for aggressively breaking down any distinction between male and female are not presented honestly.

Thanks alanna for such a sane and rational post. I hope the current ructions are not too jangling for you. I think that you and other normal ordinary transwomen who just want to get on with life, are being put into a terrible position by ignorant and clearly unbalanced trans activists.

Woman is a state of fact

Trans is a state of fiction

Let’s start there.

I think that what is fundamental to this debate (and also what makes me angry) is that men are - once again - trying to tell women what it is to be a woman.

No-one but women get to define that.

I don’t care that much about bathrooms, or trans people generally. They should be free of discrimination —and should get the help they obviously need for mental illness— but I do care very much about women, and the position of women here and now.

I think there's another massive strand that we are missing: this is actually a civil liberties issue.

If the state can declare that a man is a woman, without any scientific evidence that a woman can have a penis, then it can say anything. It can say that the Earth is flat, or that it's 6,000 years old, or that there is a god and we all have to worship him.

It is actually dangerous to give the state the power to redefine reality.

•I am looking into compiling a complaint against Westminster on the grounds of discrimination, under the Equality Act as transsexuals are currently protected, but the replacement by transgender who do not recognise or accept transsexuals in their label, is therefore discrimination•

this is true and I do think transexuals are getting screwed by TRA and I do make a distinction between TRA and TS. If you are not recognised in the law, there can be no law for you and no protection.

My hope would be going forward that protections for women and TS are strengthened.

It is really refreshing to read the responses. I suppose I should be upfront with everyone and declare my interest. Whilst I am covered under the Gender Recognition Act and do not have to reveal anything, I am a person who has a transsexual history. If anyone wishes to see me as a person who is not biologically female, then I have to support that, as I am only legally female.
There are quite a few, probably the majority, of others like me, who support the view of women on the subject of the GRA. In all honesty, we support a lot of other issues which are not currently being discussed, such as men objectifying women by wearing fetish clothing, or saying that they have periods etc.
However, the matter in hand has to be the main item of concern, and we have to confront the current proposals. I just feel so limited in not being able to do more, to get this trans cult stopped. I am looking into compiling a complaint against Westminster on the grounds of discrimination, under the Equality Act as transsexuals are currently protected, but the replacement by transgender who do not recognise or accept transsexuals in their label, is therefore discrimination.

allana there are transsexuals who explicitly say they do not want to be a subset of women and want to fight for their own spaces (Hamster on here and Miranda Yardley). This may not be a majority position among transsexuals, but maybe it could evolve and we can ally on that. It would be a hopeful way forward. I am weary to throw women under the bus on the issue, and legal sex change is frought with problems (counting female in crime statistics, being stronger in sports, scarce data suggest male pattern criminality). Obviously, the numbers of transsexuals are so small that these factors won‘t significantly impact women‘s life (at least that is how I see it), but the problem is entering a slippery slope regarding TRA demands. I hope transsexuals would understand this (some vocally do) and we can find ways where transsexuals are protected without going down the ‚woman is a feeling‘ route.

We are always on the backfoot.
It's the insanity that was revealed as soon as most of women's time was spent constantly having to defend the obvious - that females exist and women are real. Women much more patient, and much smarter than me have spent forever debating with trans activists just to build themselves the intellectual framework and gravitas to prove the blatantly obvious. We've been too kind. We've literally had to prove that females exist as something unique from males.
What's stupid is that from the feminist point of view, this has always been about WOMEN'S rights. That's why it's the definition of WOMAN which is so problematic. Feminists don't say you cannot be trans or that you don't deserve spaces. Feminists say that people who are born as men are not allowed to come and re-define what a woman is, and demand access to women-only spaces without our consent.
And women are NOT giving our consent!
The other issue is that we really need to re-frame this as a faith-based argument. Gender identity can't really be proven or disproven. Some people will just not believe transgender ideology (raises hand!). And, most importantly, you cannot reasonably expect the whole of society to pretend biological sex doesn't matter. It's lunacy.
The whole problem is that this movement has capitalized on both the gay rights and women's rights narratives, when it really is about a completely different thing (and one that conflicts with both sex-based and sexuality-based definitions).
Really we could nip this in the bud by saying that transgenderism is a SEPARATE protected category (already done under gender reassignment), but for God's sake leave SEX alone, STOP pretending females and males who way they feel like women are the same, and create reasonable third-space provisions for trans people in the contentious regions of the debate. Then trans people can sort out their own umbrella and specialist provisions. It's really not a women's issue. BUT males cannot just demand to take over women's services because they want them, too. Women have worked too hard to just give this up and go back to being solely defined by how males see them, and always prioritizing male needs.
I stand with transsexuals, too. My heart breaks for many of them. I do make distinctions within the umbrella. But right now, my priority is women keeping their own identity, dignity and autonomy.
Trans people are trans, not the opposite sex. Let's all get over it, and work together.

I agree to a large extent, on what is being posted, but, there is a section of the population whose "rights" are being challenged and eroded, as much as the rights of women.
Transsexuals are being treated with total contempt, and disregarded in these, and the earlier discussions. The laws under attack, were designed to help transsexuals in a number of ways, as they have been able to demonstrate to an acceptable degree that they were born with a medical condition.
All of this need for proof, and obtaining legal recognition of a change in sex, is being eliminated, as are transsexuals.
Transsexuals accept the fact that they have a male or female body, and only wish to have a positive integration into society, as a member of what had been the opposite sex.
Women are undoubtedly under attack, but I urge and ask that transsexuals be supported as they are also being attacked and discriminated against.

This isn't about trans rights. It's about men's demands. They are hiding it behind "trans rights" but that's just a lie

SwearyG said this on another thread and I think it perfectly encapsulates what's going on here. It also partly explains why TRAs can't provide an answer to the question What rights do trans people not have?

When TRA's frame their demands as rights it seems almost impossible to argue against (what kind of monster argues against other people's rights?) but framed as demands it becomes much clearer as to what is really going on (men making demands of women - how unusual).

The possibility of saying a clear guilt-free no to a demand is increased because not all demands are legitimate, and much of what TRAs demand is not legitimate imo.

Sorry, bolding was beyond me. I did try!

*Datun

You've got to define trans people first.

If anyone's woman who says they are, and a paedophile rapist says they are a woman and gets to go to a female prison then who the hell is actually standing up for that 'right'. Because my guess would be no one.

Define terms, otherwise the question is meaningless.*

I agree. I heard someone say similar to that yesterday on R4 and I think this should definitively stated.

Certain people for too long have been able to shout that saying a transwoman is not a woman, is hate speech. Clearly in the real world that is nothing like hate speech. Of course the word woman cannot include men who feel like women, so the only way forward is for transwomen to be legally recognised as transwomen, and for women to have the right to exclude them from sex segregated spaces. It is so frustrating when certain transwomen claim, they've been using the ladies loos for years & no one bats an eyelid....they know they are not a woman yet are abusing the system of trust, that ladies use the ladies & men use the mens.