Is the Trans Issue like Brexit?

First Jean = didn’t mean (fucking autocorrect)

I find the idea that we can’t tell TW from bio women in the flesh to be untrue. Women are very good at recognising male bodies. No matter what surgery a TW has had they cannot change their height, the size of their hands & feet, the breadth of their shoulders or the width of their pelvis. Some TW have indeed been using womens spaces for years but that first Jean women were ok with that because bluntly we were never asked. Women are socialised to 1. Be kind and 2. Be aware that men can be dangerous. The reason women in the past haven’t challenged “old style” TW in our suaves is because we were being nice and keeping ourselves safe not because we necessarily were happy with them being there

Also men in dresses uding mens loos are not in any more danger from men than any other man. Lets stick to facts.

No the men put in womens prisons is down to the policy of putting men in womens prisons. There was no mistake about it, its what is says on the tin. I dont know why anyone is pretending otherwise.

Things as they are is the mess we have where nobody is actually applying any common sense. Some of the self-IDd-women who have been put in women's prisons, clearly shouldn't have been. That is down purely to people not applying common sense when incarcerating them. And so on. That is the situation that is not acceptable to me - the simple application of common sense.

I'm not keen on Self-ID because i don't see the current regulation as too onerous to someone who really wants to change their gender. If you want to be a woman, living demonstrably as a woman (which involves changing your name and telling people she/her etc, as far as i can see and doesn't include wearing dresses and not being able to park) for 2 years isn't something that reasonable people kick against.

And this is where the TRAs come in - reasonable people understand what it is that women are complaining about. Unreasonable people are louder. Kind of like the louder Brexiters going on about "blue passports innit" and Remainers apparently calling all brexit voters racist idiots. Pandering to extremes isn't being inclusive, it is being daft.

I am always for a pragmatic approach that does least harm. Saying TWAW doesn't erase women. It does include a very small subset of people who weren't born women. And if people apply common sense, they will realise that TW have been using female-only spaces for yonks. TRAs have suddenly muscled in on this, and that is clearly an issue for everyone.

So the human rights i expect to be applied to everyone is the application of common sense, and a way forward that hears all opinions and then takes the best way forward. And the best way forward might be being more inclusive, it might be something else. But it doesn't have to include anyone's erasure. It certainly shouldn't be willy-nilly doing what the loudest squeaky wheel wants every time.

The two transwomen i have known quietly went on with their lives for years and a lot of people didn't even realise they weren't born as women. The idea that they should suddenly be forced to use a men's toilet after 30 years using the women's is daft. And dangerous (for them). They are not the issue.

So again to compare to Brexit - it is the extreme positions that keep the fight going and making it nearly impossible for a pragmatic, democratic way forward.

@Brefugee
If I may answer our points;

I would have voted remain (but not allowed to vote) but now Brexit is the reality we all have to make sure that it works, because the alternative is too awful. So it is fine to say that you prefer to be in the EU, but confronted with the reality of Brexit we need solutions that work within the framework of the fact that Britain is no longer in the EU.

Terrific points and attitude.

With Trans issues, I feel pretty much the same. The genie is not going back in the bottle, and the reality of our lives is that there are trans people

No one is suggesting trans people dont exist and the repitition of this lie is suggesting that you either have not engaged in this debate much or are being disengenious in your agrements.

and they are people who should have human rights afforded to them the same as anyone else.
Please outline any rights trans people dont have? and also please show any GC point that argues to remove any right that everyone has from trans people. Ta

So you many not believe TWAW but the fact is that they are here and we have to find the least damaging way forward.

This statement is disengenious as it conflates two things that are in fact seperate, in an attempt to make the forced subdigation of women seem reasonable. What this statement infact says is that women will just have to 'enjoy your erasure' and the erasure of our right to safety and full human diginity. The least damaging way forward would be third spaces, something GC women have been arguing for for as long as this debate has been going on.
For the record, feminists have always known that misogny is rampent in society, so none of this is in fact new.

So - and i agree that there are a lot of things that need to be sorted out and clarified - we just have to get used to expressions like "women and birthing parents" and be happy that we are being included and inclusive.
From this statement is seems the only things that needs to be sorted out are the compromises that women will be forced to make, nice bit of misogny there. And happy that we are included in our own catogory of human? thats quite a thing to be forced to accept, no?

That is not to say that i don't think that there is a need for single-sex spaces, because clearly many people want them. But we have to find a way forward because how things are now is clearly not acceptable to many people.

'Things as they are* I am assuming you mean things like rape crisis centers and womens prisons only holding women. The idea that there are hords of the population who are upset that men are not in womens prisons, sports and shelters is more TRA nonesense.

we just have to get used to expressions like "women and birthing parents" and be happy that we are being included and inclusive.

But it isn't an inclusive statement.

What does 'women' mean in this context? Does 'women' mean: 'people who like pink things and are bad at parking'? By way of illustration, could the statement 'this part of the antenatal course is aimed at women and other birthing parents' be equally rendered 'this part of the antenatal course is aimed at those people who like pink things and are bad at parking, as well as other birthing parents'?

Presumably this would be viewed as a highly offensive explanation - so what is an alternative, non-offensive explanation for the word 'woman'?

I'm not ready to give up the battle over this.

Re Brexit - I disagree with the decision, but the country was entitled to vote a different way from me. It's a political decision - we're not tinkering with the basics of language.

I think there are obviously ways in which Brexit is similar to the trans ideology issue, but as PPs have said, I think it's more a hindrance than a help to compare the two.

Both are polarising issues and any attempts to draw parallels are likely to polarise people further and weaken any actual arguments grounded in logic and relevant facts.

Lots of things are similar to lots of other things, but I think pulling in another hugely complex and sprawling issue (with the potential for another messy heap of assumptions to be debated that have zero to do with sex/gender) is a mistake if the aim is to explore/explain the issue of sex/gender oppression.

However, if the aim is to keep a conversation going for a very long time, distract someone or just rub people up the wrong way, then it probably works great!

I think there are similarities, but not in the way you appear to be suggesting. With both issues, one side have positioned themselves as having the moral high ground (or being on the right side of history) and assume that the other side are bigots / alt right / old / stupid etc. It didn't work for Brexit and it won't work for the attack on women's rights because you can't really change people's minds by calling them names. What you are likely to do is further alienate them.

I'm pretty sure that DR Cascascascas is a troll.
However, as is has been pointed out and as is known by anyone with rudimentary understanding of biology, sex is determined at the point of conception.
It's not Jurassic Park, Dr Casacascascas.

However, just in case the eminent Dr is not a troll, its scary to believe that a lot of Trans ideology relies on people's lack of knowledge and understanding about biology or genetics. Just casually throwing in a comment like 'all foetuses are female' and the like is such a common ploy by some trans ideologists. Some people hear 'facts' like that and take it as gospel.
There was a poster on here in recent months (I think she still posts under another name as I recognise her writing style and the idiotic arguments she comes up with) who stated that vagina's were exactly the same a penises, only 'internal'. That all foetuses were female. That sex is not binary and on a spectrum. And many other factually incorrect nonsense, and the scary thing was she claimed to be a sex education teacher. If that is true, we are truly down the rabbit hole.

The good thing is that real science is provable and these arguments can be exposed for what they are.
Propaganda.

So - and i agree that there are a lot of things that need to be sorted out and clarified - we just have to get used to expressions like "women and birthing parents" and be happy that we are being included and inclusive.

‘Woman’ when used to refer to sex is a neutral term that makes no judgement about identity and includes everyone whose sex is female.

I don’t agree that women just have to get used to the idea that ‘woman’ can only refer to an identity that seems to be based largely on the sexist stereotypes that have been used to oppress women for centuries.

No other members of a group are forced to define themselves in this way.

I don't really like the comparison. But both expose how out of touch and arrogant the 'political class' have become. Cameron held a referendum convinced he'd win. Labour revealed their contempt for their working class voters.

On Trans issues they've made the mistake of having a public consultation after smuggling through the GRA by stealth because they think women and voters are sheep who'll do as there told. Big mistake, the problem is more suffering is caused by this.

the reality of our lives is that there are trans people and they are people who should have human rights afforded to them the same as anyone else.
What rights are being denied them?

[quote Cascascascas]@WarriorN

How rude. I am doctor.
You are clearly arrogant.[/quote]
Is no argument at all...
Come back with facts and logic.

I think this debate is more like Brexit than not in how it is playing out among families and society in general.
I wonder if this is the new politics now, no middle ground and demonise the 'other side'?
I really hope we can ditch this latest American import as it will end in civil war if all future political disputes are like this.

It was following I am doctor with You are clearly arrogant that got me!

Cascascascas at least demonstrates very well why it isn’t helpful to divide people into ignorant Brexiters and informed Remainers.

(Although perhaps unintentionally).

I don't agree though. This just makes it into two sides who will never ever come to an agreement. And I think that conceding the small point of "women and..." Shows willingness to compromise on something with the expectation of compromise on other things.

I really don't know the answer though.

I don't think it's a helpful analogy. I voted Remain, but I can understand why people voted Brexit, and I know plenty of intelligent and thoughtful people who did so.

The trans issue is a very different kettle of fish. It's based on an absolute denial of scientific reality, and is being pushed by postmodernist academics who want to destabilise the social fabric. It is also deeply misogynistic and is designed to remove women's fundamental sex-based rights.

we just have to get used to expressions like "women and birthing parents" and be happy that we are being included and inclusive.

I disagree. Nothing feminists are fighting for, in defence of women and children, is harmful to men or to trans people. Anything we give up means a reduction in women’s and children’s rights.

[quote Cascascascas]@WarriorN

How rude. I am doctor.
You are clearly arrogant.[/quote]
Doctor of what?
I know someone who is a doctor, he got his PhD in astrophysics. I doubt he'd claim to be an expert on genetics. He does know an awful lot about the stars though.

Middle class, educated women are highly unlikely to ever end up in prison, just as middle class Jemimas working in publishing can't imagine their job being threatened by a sudden influx of cheap labour.

Also true.

I don't think Johnson and Gove ever thought they would have to enact Brexit, and Keir Starmer doesn't given the impression that he has given 2 minutes thought to the consequences of creating the legislation he suggests he supports.

Depressingly true.