The Conflict of Rights: Why can't people just admit to this?

I'm not clear how conflict of rights relates to the issue of changing sex. I'm very gender critical too, but I certainly think any adult of sound mind has the right to undertake SRS if they want to. It's their body.

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

Down, at least in part, to the narcissistic claim that men-who-claim-they-are-women are women. To admit there’s a conflict of rights would be to admit that they are outside the category “women” as obviously no women are naturally excluded from that group.

And as validation is the whole point for most men who claim to be women, admitting they’re non-women is a non-starter.

On the other hand, personally I can’t get worked up about transwomen using women’s toilets

But with respect, some women can.

For some women, that's the end of being able to use public toilets.

Framing women's concerns as just some women being silly is inequality and oppression in its finest form. I noticed the consultation yesterday managed to never once engage with or frame any single issue that women have as one worthy of listening to or caring about; it's framed as being a bit prissy, silly and prejudiced.

So think about: why should those women with their issues (which we won't even let them talk about since they're that unimportant and irrelevant to anyone normal, sod their lived experience/voice/equality) just get over it, suck it up, learn to deal...…? But it's absolutely appalling and will unleash frothing rage at the insensitivity and oppression of suggesting that someone could equally just use the toilet of their sex and suck up their feelings and issues in the same way that it's so ok to expect women to?

This is also the case on many other heated issues, such as abortion, anti-vaxxers, and surrogacy. I have strong views on these topics too, but I accept that there are two sides to each debate.

There may be two sides, but they're not equal sides. In terms of abortion, there is a huge difference between 'I don't think anyone should be allowed have an abortion' vs 'I think it should be up to the individual to decide'. In terms of vaccination, the consequences of not believing in vaccinating your child and therefore not doing so puts others at risk.

Some sides of a debate are simply not rational and finding a middle ground is impossible. 'Live and let live' versus 'everyone should do what I say' are two sides. And that's what's happening with the gender ideology 'debate' (or lack thereof). Not agreeing that the subjective reality of one group should be paramount, and prioritised over material reality, and the lived experiences of another group, is presented as bigoted, hateful, 'harmful'.

It's when people start seeing this that they give up on trying to 'be nice', because no matter how many concessions you might make, more will always be demanded of you.

And as I say, over and over here (sorry)

This agenda accepts some female people being excluded from any facilities so that male people can take their preferred choice from all the facilities.

That has to be justified in terms of basic morality.

Framing it as a difference in belief that can be mutually respected would possibly permit a way forward.

But that incoherence came through yesterday in Truss's statement. You cannot preserve single sex spaces in the way required by significant numbers of female people for many reasons, and support people using the facilities of their choice regardless of their sex. It has to be one or the other. Both cannot exist simultaneously.

Once you unpick that, you have to acknowledge:

There must be maintained limits to how far someone's personal choices can be carried when they impact upon other people's rights and needs. There must be maintained boundaries on this freedom. We've always said it here: your right to swing your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

You cannot compel people into enacting or speaking a belief they do not hold, and still be a liberal, civilised society.

There are a lot of very serious implications in permitting and enabling a selective or preferred reality against hard, actual fact. Particularly when starting to frame people speaking fact and maintaining reality instead of repeating what they are told to believe is 'hate' and getting criminal penalties involved.

Kicking this can down the road is not helping.

When discussing these issues with friends, a “difference in beliefs” is often the only way I can frame it to have a civilised discussion.

However, I would frame it in the sense that my experience and beliefs as a woman are grounded in my sex-based identity. I don’t believe that I have chosen to be a woman and don’t feel that I have chosen any “gender identity”. On the contrary, gender is something that I have experienced as oppressive and based on societal stereotypes about men and women.

I can accept, however, that other people prioritise their gender identity over biological sex. I can also accept that other people find the concept of “gender” liberating because they see it as overriding their sex. I don’t agree with this belief (just as I don’t agree with many people’s religious beliefs) but I will respect somebody’s chosen gender pronouns etc.

Having said that, I will continue to defend my belief that biological sex is important in some circumstances, that it is vital to be able to talk about women as a sex class, and that prioritising gender identity over biological sex is not always appropriate or grounded in the reality of why we need sex-based protections. I will also defend my right to hold these beliefs, but am increasingly concerned that expressing them could destroy my career.

When it comes to practical solutions, both sides need to listen to the concerns of the other. However, at least in the absence of significantly increased funding for prisons, hospitals and shelters to ensure everyone’s safety and privacy, I simply don’t see how we can move away from a general rule that there should be segregation by biological sex. To me, it’s not good enough for a belief in the priority of gender identity to trump the protection of vulnerable women who have absolutely no choice about who they are sleeping, showering and living with. On the other hand, personally I can’t get worked up about transwomen using women’s toilets (and think this is normally raised by TRAs to distract from more difficult issues).

The people who believe that you can change sex live in a world of instant gratification, that is to say they want what they want exactly how they want it straight away served up on a plate with no opposition whatsoever. For them to admit that there's a conflict of rights would mean that they are willing to meet others in the middle. They are not willing to do that, they are so narcissistic that they think disagreement and someone saying 'no' is violence and oppression to them and this gives them justification to be abusive to those people.

I do not believe that people can change sex or in the validity of the 'spectrum of genders' the same way I do no believe in religion. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish as long its not forced on others, a concept gender ideologists seem to not understand. Your self perception of yourself should not be a burden forced on the shoulders of society to take on without their consent.

It's conversion. Religious conversion.

We're being told we must believe.

I'd say there actually is no "conflict," as that word would suggest two opposing sides with equally valid claims.
What this is, is a unilateral attempt at conquest.

Gaslighting?

The minute they accept that they know full well there is a conflict of rights and that their aim is the removal of rights from the holders of one of the protected characteristics the whole nasty, illogical house of cards will come tumbling down.

Whilst I don't believe that it's possible to change sex, I respect that some people do believe that.

Why would you respect that some people believe this? It’s not possible. We all know it. Even those who pretend they don’t know it.

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

Because admitting you are actively trying to remove sex based rights of half the population isn’t a good look.