What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

Why isn't there more awareness of AGP and similar?

I think there always has been a degree of awareness; we've just used other names for men who behave in that manner, and most people have found it too distasteful to really delve into the psychology behind it.

Was the voting bit your point first, Antibles? I fear I've inadvertently attributed it OldCrone. Sorry!

As for whether there's any research into why women don't seem to develop fetishes: I don't know, but if there is, my very first question is going to be "Was it authored by a man?" Because if it is, they're highly likely to bring their own cognitive sexist bias into it.

An epidemic of males claiming to be women

Maybe we're just seeing more trans people because now people are generally more accepting nowadays?
Your comment sounds an awful lot like someone I know who says everybody seems to be gay nowadays and I'm like ummm maybe that's because it's a lot more socially acceptable (for want of a better word) nowadays?

I doubt a man would think "ooh, it's easier to become a woman now, I think I'll become a woman as I can still vote and nothing's taken away from me" sounds a bit of a drastic step to take

Yet this is precisely what we see happening and this is indeed my point. As Tyro and Goosefoot clarify. Whether to indulge AGP or MRA tendencies, males are suddenly claiming publically to actually be women at precisely that moment in history in the UK when there is finally nothing to lose for a male legally or economically by doing so. The timing is not a coincidence!

Yes it does seem drastic but here we are. An epidemic of males claiming to be women and grabbing gold medals, positions on women's sports teams, Women's Officer posts, candidacies on women only shortlists, media careers, and the title of Most Oppressed and Vulnerable People Ever.

Which leads me to another thing that my eyes have been opened to by all this - how drastically far males will go to pursue a sexual fetish or have it validated. The gaslighting of entire nations!

My eyes are also opened to the fact that men seem to be able to develop a sexual fetish about literally anything! As far as I am aware, women don't tend to. I never really thought much about this before. Are males like baby chicks, imprinting onto odd things around them at a crucial developmental time? Or is it more like dogs humping random cushions and passers by? Is there any research into this? Why isn't there more awareness of AGP and similar?

Oh, I know, bd - if I used the words he uses to describe himself I'd doubtless be deleted!

But I do find it telling, that Lemonade is still ignoring the question.

Can my ex be both trans and a man?

If your ex is biologically-male, we had a phrase for male humans in his position that acknowledged both the trans identity and the maleness. It's listed as a banned phrase in this policy so I can't repeat it in this post, but I've given a couple of hints if you read my post carefully.

Journalists were silenced on trans issues after the Lucy Meadows case.

The change of reporting rules in response to that tragedy was a substantial overcorrection. I'm struggling to see the public interest (not the public's nosiness, they are different things) in reporting that a primary teacher was undergoing gender reassignment. By contrast, there is enormous public interest in reporting the sex of criminal offenders correctly, especially when those offenders have committed violent or sexual crimes.

Women do not get 'offended' for being mistaken for men.
Well, why would they? I know if someone mistook me for a man in RL, I'd just roll my eyes as I know I'm not one.
Your comparison would only be comparable if I was a woman who identified as a man and people kept telling me I wasn't a man, I was a woman.

Women do not get 'offended' for being mistaken for men.
Men don't seem to be able to grasp this.

just because a randomer on the internet told me I should be.
That's really dismissive of the literally hundreds of studies into violence against women. It's not about demonising all men, it's about understanding toxic masculinity and its effects on men and women. You can't do this without looking at the facts.

you're judging what people are based on their appearance.

Well yes, but judging someone to be male or female based on observable physical characteristics doesn't imply any sort of moral judgement. I'm not sure why you'd be so against it.

Have you thought of a word for me yet, by the way? And the ex is still on tenterhooks waiting to find out how he's allowed to identify.

I don't have that now even about papers I used to really respect.

I'm raising a can in memory of the high esteem in which I used to hold the Graun.

but photos of trans speak the truth

What, that trans women might look like a man?
Well, yes a lot will as they are biologically men and no-one has disputed that? Doesn't stop them being trans women though.
There's a big flaw in your argument though -you're judging what people are based on their appearance.
Bit crap for any biological woman who doesn't look "womanly" enough for you (whatever the fuck that is.)

Journalists were silenced on trans issues after the Lucy Meadows case.
Reporting crimes committed by trans has been stifled ever since.
Editors have had their hands tied except for the worst cases like Karen White.

Photos allow editors to get past the legal hoops.

There is little point reading news articles with false pronouns but photos of trans speak the truth.

FFS bold the top line as it's a quote

There has been a real generational change and I think that is part of what the media is reflecting.
Good post there Goosefoot especially this bit and thought provoking

My big question is "if they can get away with telling a lie so big and obvious, what else are the media and policy makers lying to us about?"

There must be millions of topics about which the general public is ignorant that could be past or future targets.

This is what is so concerning about the way journalistic standards are being observed. t's not that I agreed with every paper or journalist before, but there was a sense that there were certain things you had to do to be a serious paper or writer.

I don't have that now even about papers I used to really respect.

The other side of this though is in some ways, it's been enforced by a social change, at least in some demographics, about what it is ok to say and not say. There are a lot of young people in particular who believe in control of different kinds of speech and ideas. There has been a real generational change and I think that is part of what the media is reflecting.

But transwomen are in fact biological men.

The same as you op - the power of the mass media and rich lobby groups to essentially lie to the public without any consequences or checks and balances.

My big question is "if they can get away with telling a lie so big and obvious, what else are the media and policy makers lying to us about?"

There must be millions of topics about which the general public is ignorant that could be past or future targets.

True, can see that - as it won't have been understood as much and as you say people will have had no concept of it.
I bet there was some that were though, but had no idea what it was as you say there was no concept of being trans
Wouldn't have meant that there were none around who were unhappy and confused though, I'd have thought they'd still be around.

Well, that's a possibility, but I don't think there is really a lot of evidence to support it. Mainly because the concept you seem to have of being trans, as being an objective type of person, is very questionable medically or scientifically.

What seems to have been the case is that there were men and women, defined biologically, who felt like they didn't like some things society associated with their own sex, or in some cases preferred to do certain things usually associated with the other sex. Depending on various circumstances those thoughts and practices may have been more or less tolerated - it's never been the case that all women were equally interested in being very "feminine" and people have generally known that. A woman who wanted to dress like a man would have been less common though not unheard of, a woman who wanted to join the navy, well, that had to be done on the sly and would be quite difficult to do.

But that's quite different than what you are talking about.

As for some sort of body dysphoria attached to the sexual organs, perhaps this existed in the past though I believe the historical evidence doesn't really clearly indicate a person is something like what people might call "trans" now. Third genders in some societies seem to be a different phenomena.

That sounds like a good excuse for a rum cream and milk for me.

Now that's what gets my face going . But to each her own. Cheers!

Lord, I'm sure we've been through this a 1000 times, lemonade.. You know full well that it's not all men are a threat, but it's almost exclusively men.

*Goose! We're agreeing entirely on something! This feels worthy of celebration.

The idea that to a woman any man is a potential threat...they do NOT want to hear it.

In my opinion and experience, that's a really warped and paranoid way of thinking.
That all men are a threat - they're just people.
There's bad ones and good ones.
I'm not about to start going round being scared of all men and that they're all a potential threat just because a randomer on the internet told me I should be.

How many of the wonderful, intelligent, kind men in my family and close friends REALLY REALLY don't want to acknowledge the extent of male violence against women.

I think they thought separate facilities were equally for the benefit of both sexes to save embarrassment.

The idea that to a woman any man is a potential threat...they do NOT want to hear it.

Pretty evidently there weren't. It wasn't even a concept people had

True, can see that - as it won't have been understood as much and as you say people will have had no concept of it.
I bet there was some that were though, but had no idea what it was as you say there was no concept of being trans.
Wouldn't have meant that there were none around who were unhappy and confused though, I'd have thought they'd still be around.
Rigid stereotypes will have been in place, men were supposed to be men and do man things, and women were supposed to be women and do women things.
Kind of like it better now where we're not forced into stereotypes, I can go out and work if I want to and I don't have to stay at home and bake all day and wait hand on foot on my man - we can be who we are. Without telling us what we "should" do or be.

Goose! We're agreeing entirely on something! This feels worthy of celebration.