How should we treat trans people?

We can protect the rights of women by actually having a definition of women that is science-based and not ideology-based. 'Adult human female' vs the circular 'a woman is someone who feels like a woman' (with no such assault on the definition of 'man', of course).

And generally, no they don't pass.

Transpeople should be treated like people. Which they are. Women still need safe spaces though, so I think that 3rd spaces are necessary for transpeople who are not happy using the toilets etc of their natal sex.

They may not be able to compete in sports. They can take part in sports but need to compete in their natal category. If that means transwomen don't win against men, then they don't. If that means transmen can't compete against women because of the testosterone, then they can't.

Transpeople don't get extra rights.

The emphasis on passing speaks volumes about the priorities of some individuals. ABC is right.

I want the GRA repealed pronto. Sex based rights retained and actively enforced and trans people treated with dignity and honesty. That includes not lying or patronising them with fictional nonsense about gender.

Indeed - to the extent that in future the argument about 'passing' should be met only with the acronym ABC.

And B, especially B.

The only thing I really got out of the last 20 pages was "look most trans people pass, OK? for real, and this is important somehow".

Which, like a. not really, b. Specsavers, and c. even if true still wouldn't address the issues of child sterilization, sports, etc.

Indeed.

Fairly typical, don't like what women have to say so you silence them.

Yes, anti-woman activists of various flavours coming on here to derail threads is a very popular tactic for silencing women. How dare FWR regulars want to talk about topics that interest us? This cannot be allowed, quick, deploy the sealions to steer the thread in other directions. Women must never under any circumstances be allowed to talk about things that we're concerned about.

I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard that the GRA had been passed. I remember the feeling of dread at the thought that such lies were being allowed.

My view is that before the proposals re self Id, I was happy about trans people being able to change their birth certificates , and given there were so few, the toilet, changing room stuff never seemed an issue.
Now, I’m absolutely fine with adults transitioning - in some ways. I’d always respect pronouns etc, I believe they should not suffer discrimination BUT I do not like the TWAW stuff. There HAS to be a recognition of biological reality. I also think that given the huge number of categories included in definition of “trans”, and that a diagnosis of GD is not required, it’s almost become a “lifestyle” choice. This means that I now believe trans women should NOT be allowed general access to women only spaces as it’s a gift for predators, be they genuine trans or not.
This is the shame of the TRA agenda. Those few people with real GD relied on the support and trust of women. Now, I’m not prepared to risk it for any cross dressing autogynephile that feels like getting a quick thrill in the public pool changing room.
And transing kids must stop.

.

But what about the thing you just said? Can you say it again in slightly different words? And what about this other completely irrelevant thing? And also, that thing I said 5 pages ago, let's go over that again, yeah?

What, you still haven't changed your minds? Echo chamber!

(Flounces promising never to return, comes back the next day.)

Actually I'm pretty sure the world would be better off without any (more?) 40 page threads about fat people on planes. Wouldn't make an effort to shut them down but I'd definitely go out of my way to avoid them.

Haha! I don't care one way or the other.

As we all know. I am referring to threads that look like an episode of Just A Minute because they've gone to forty pages in a day because they have been filibustered to death with pointless repetition, hesitation, deviation. Not about differing opinions.

I would happily see any further "child parking spaces" thread shut down tbh.

Actually I'm pretty sure the world would be better off without any (more?) 40 page threads about fat people on planes. Wouldn't make an effort to shut them down but I'd definitely go out of my way to avoid them.

Read two posts up. I'm not saying it twice.

*I see another thread about to go to forty pages of endless repetition.

MNHQ should really get to grips with this.*

Fairly typical, don't like what women have to say so you silence them.

Loads of threads on this site go to 1000 posts, subjects as diverse and Shamina Begum, abortion, fat people on aeroplanes and Meghan Markle. There is a lot of repetition there, and the subject has often been done to death in previous threads but I bet you don't want these threads shut down.

Well, I guess it just sticks in the craw of some people to have a thread with nearly every post demonstrating that the women here are all saying 'third spaces, retain women's sex based rights', so they like to throw in their strangely pointless ponderings about whether males can look female or if hormones and surgery are appropriate responses to children's mental distress.

I know Field has gone now, but I'll say it again - women's sex based rights protected, and third spaces for those who don't like male spaces.

Why is it just the small number of people on here you disagree with that you constantly accuse of repetition? Don’t you do exactly the same, thread after thread?

You know perfectly well that I'm referring to the small number of posters who filibuster threads to forty pages over and over again: not any and all posters I disagree with. This is an abuse of the board and not good faith "debate".

Other threads here include disagreements but aren't filibustered to forty pages with repetition, faux misunderstandings, DARVO nonsense and misdirections. I'm not complaining about them.

If this board was moderated to the benefit of the board and not the control of feminists, this issue would have been dealt with already.

The only thing I really got out of the last 20 pages was "look most trans people pass, OK? for real, and this is important somehow".

Which, like a. not really, b. Specsavers, and c. even if true still wouldn't address the issues of child sterilization, sports, etc.

bye 👋

Earlier field said: "I’m not trying to change any of your minds. I can see the logical consistency in your arguments."

You know the arguments. You accept they are logically consistent. But you disagree with the conclusion(? My assumption - not actually sure what your conclusion really is). Is there a premise you find to be false?

(Apart from the more minor ones we've already discussed in this thread).

Jolly good. Go well.

No thanks, I’ll leave it there.

So what, then? We'd all suddenly change our minds in the face of your brilliant counterarguments?

I really question whether 10 year olds are capable of making decisions about whether or not they will in future want to have kids of their own either.

I didn't think about it until aged 13-14, and decided pretty swiftly that I didn't want them. However, even that late on and with the certainty I felt (and still feel) about child-freedom, it would have been wrong to remove that option from me via elective medical treatments because I was still a child.

At the age of ten, I was navigating periods, breasts, and sexualisation from adult men and boys alike. Having kids wasn't on my radar even with that going on.

I'm forced to wonder who benefits from children being sterilised? The kind of people who want to do acts that could make children pregnant and for whom that pregnancy would be inconvenient, perhaps?