Lib Dem women say what?

www.channel4.com/programmes/undercover-police-hunting-paedophiles.

There's a man in it who groomed a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl online and went to meet her at an Air BnB carrying popcorn, cake, condoms, cable ties and a butt plug.

When the police intervened he explained that he didn't agree with the laws around child sex, he was a nice man, he was just living his life and of course he wouldn't have done anything to the girl unless she'd wanted him to. He was certainly planning to live his life how he pleased.

If that's what the Lib Dems stand for then thanks for the heads-up.

I'll have to content myself with saying I'd accept that some mtf transitioners have gender dysphoria. I don't think it's the vast, vast majority.

Yes.

Of the broad group of trans people, do you accept that it is the vast, vast majority who have gender dysphoria, and that these people genuinely, in good faith, just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

The problem here is that Mumsnet has set out its rules for discussions of gender and what many of us would like to say here is forbidden. So I'll have to content myself with saying I'd accept that some mtf transitioners have gender dysphoria. I don't think it's the vast, vast majority.

Now now Red opinions, doncha know!

False equivalence between women wanting to discuss their own liberty and safety and the far right is a bit of a shit tactic to play when you are effectively accusing very normal average women of being militant for that and that their opinion and life experience is therefore valueless.

It makes you look unhinged.

So very dismissive!

Ta ra! Important shit to do!

[quote PassingThrough2]@Ereshkigalangcleg

Sure, everything is a balancing act. But for much the same reasons that the legalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage were the right thing to do despite competing considerations, I think that steps to make the lives of trans people easier are on balance the right thing to do as well. For example, improving access to trans healthcare and enabling trans people to transition more easily doesn't strike me as harming anybody, but does help people live their lives more freely.[/quote]
Read this short essay. Then come back and say affirmative healthcare offered without any attempt at a proper mental health evaluation first isn't harming anyone.

hormonehangover.substack.com/p/top-surgery-regret-part-1

If anyone hasn't seen this thread, I suggest that you do read these thread...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4169150-Pseudo-realities-Power-and-Language-Games

Its really enlightening.

Username makes me wonder... just passing through my ass.

Monitoring and reporting back to high command what the womins are 'plotting' now.

They must not be allowed to discuss things.

@RedToothBrush – I'm afraid I'm not a member of the Radical Association – I disagree with them on an awful lot of other things, as well as their overall approach within the party. Anyway, really must dash now. Thanks all for the discussion.

Time to post this again from Lachlan Stuart. Lachlan for those who don't know is a civil servant who worked on the 2019 Labour Manifesto with a view to securing the best plan for trans health.

It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in.

medium.com/@lachlanstuart/the-confessions-of-a-transphobe-b4942c06e6e4

I think you're enormously naive and cavalier with the rights of many people who are more vulnerable than most trans people, but we all have different perspectives, eh?

So which member of the Radical Association are you?

You're just continuing the lie. You did so by ignoring the first part of my post.

Not a good tactic as anyone reading later will see my whole post and will see that you had to ignore half of what I did type to make your point.

I think there are vastly more people claiming to be trans than actually have medical gender dysphoria, which is more like body dysmorphia than just thinking you don't really feel like you think a male should feel, so actually you must be a woman.

Anyway, good to discuss this with you all, but I have to return to other things, not least work. I hope despite my disagreement with those who have been interacting with me that I have kept things civil!

@Ereshkigalangcleg –Analogies help people view things through different lenses on issues where there is a lot of entrenchment. My view on its 'own merits' is as I put it in my first post here: I don't think the state should prevent people from living life as they choose. If that means they identify as a different gender, then so be it. There are difficulties there, which you point out, but I don't think they're insurmountable, and think this whole political debate would end up far more equitably if there was a lot less heat on both sides of the argument.

@CuriousaboutSamphire–I'm afraid I just don't agree. You're entitled to your view, but it's not one I share. In my view, denying people recognition of something which is core to their identity and conception of themselves is to deny them their dignity, and I just don't think that hard line helps anyone. I'm not here to berate you – I'm only posting really because I disagreed with the characterisation of my 'side' of the debate as "authoritarian" –but I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.

Lies. If you are going to tell one. Tell a big one.

Then carry on. Until people start to question the very integrity of the truth and the meaning of words until they are rendered meaningless and people feel they have no power.

Failing that just kick em out the party citing they are bigots and have done with it because there is no right of appeal anyway in the Kangaroo Court of the Radical Association.

No! Not in the slightest! Wonder why 🤔

Do you accept that it is the vast, vast majority who have gender dysphoria

No.

And much more commonly now transmen are demanding men's rights as transmen are men!

Not really getting indulged in the same way by men and male centred organisations, though.

@Ereshkigalangcleg – Of the broad group of trans people, do you accept that it is the vast, vast majority who have gender dysphoria, and that these people genuinely, in good faith, just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

And do you see why there are so many people who don't see why trans people should come second either? And with the exception of some at the extremes on both sides, I'm not sure I'd agree that there's any 'ideology' at play really – it's just competing views as to what people think is the most equitable way forward based on the real needs and hopes and fears of real people, on both sides. That doesn't strike me as massively ideological.

And that's the inherent lie!

Transpeople politicking for trans rights, healthcare etc is an objective no reasonable person would stand in the way of.

But that isn't what is being fought for. Transwomen are demanding women's rights that's why transwomen are women.

And much more commonly now transmen are demanding men's rights as transmen are men!

That's the disputed area, where male bodies demand entry to female arenas. Women say no.

People like yourself berate us for doing so!

Why can you only argue your case with analogies? Maybe ask yourself why it doesn't stand on its own merits.

@Apollo440 –Religious organisations complained of infringement of their religious liberty when same-sex marriage was introduced, for example. Similarly when hate crime legislation was brought in to allow for homophobia to be an aggravating factor in the commission of crimes. More generally, concerns about gay teachers, gay people in changing rooms, gay people serving in the military – all of these considerations were weighed against the individual freedoms of gay people. And it was determined (rightly in my view) that those individual freedoms ought to win out.