Lesbians not welcome at Gay Pride

I think the problem is more that the term TW has expanded to be meaningless.
When it meant people with dysphoria who were presenting to genuinely appear as female to others, as a way to manage their dysphoria, that was arguably a reasonable accommodation

Yes. I think of it as flipping from "as a" to "is a"

When a trans woman was understood to be a man who wanted, for reasons that may have varied between people but always connected to mental health, to be treated as a woman, that definition could stand alone. It did not require us to redefine womanhood as a mental state, nor to transfer the history of women's oppression under patriarchy, and with it the right to access mitigating social structures that support women, to a group that never in reality experienced it.

It was a definition that allowed for acceptance of trans women socially alongside acceptance that there would be times when it was not appropriate to treat such men as women, without negating anything about the trans woman.

When the narrative flipped to a trans women is a woman, it was not just a minor evolution in a journey towards acceptance of gender non-conformance. It entirely changed the proposition on which trans people had previously been accepted.

In order for a trans woman to be a woman, womanhood itself had to be redefined for all women into something that could be found in a male body.

In one swoop, to accommodate the feelings of people who have never and could never experience life in a female body, the experience of half the population was delegitimised.

If a trans women is a woman, then any boundary between trans women and what, for want of a better term, I will call the group formerly known as women is framed as a denial of the former's womanhood. It becomes an act of bigotry and negation of her identity.

By this simple sleight of definition, every individual scenario where trans women should or should not access to female-only support has been flipped from considering whether to grant additional accommodation into whether to refuse an expected right. It put female people on the back foot of having to defend what was already in place, and put in place for practical reasons, not because of any change to those practical needs but simply because the meaning of a word changed.

And I doubt it was accidental.

I don't post often as I have very little to add but I read all the threads , so it's easier sometimes for me to spot the patterns!

Yes I'm feeling extremely irritated now , and wish there was a block button for certain posters!
It ruins threads of interesting discussion when posters vomit thier vile sputum onto valid discussion! 😡

Thanks jeffgoldblum. I appreciate the lovely flowers. And yes, Hearache most definitely is attempting to push my buttons.

@Helleofabore , your response has been excellent throughout but I think your wasting your time with earache they don't have the wit to really push their argument across and now I think are deliberately pushing your buttons.
They have achieved nothing but the opposite of their intention and shown any lurkers the biased and unscrupulous methods of tra agenda.

As I am not transphobic, of course I won't admit it.

Is this ALL you have left? Another pointing of fingers throwing around slurs and name calling.

I will own to calling transitioned males, transitioned males when it is entirely relevant. And as this board discusses the conflict of the demands made by transitioned males on the rights of all females, it means that on this board I will continue to use that phrase. Despite the fact you have attempted this before.

Your lack of evidence, data that supports the claims you make about prioritising males over females when it comes to issues where sex matters, and just plain logic.

Your posts of constant twisting, pivoting, deflections, hyperbole, hypocrisy and dishonesty means you don't seem to be able to do anything else.

Come on Hearach!!!!!
WHAT is a transwoman if they are NOT a male who has transitioned?
WHAT is transphobic about saying this?

It's odd how you scuttle off when there's another very simple question that you cannot answer.

The simple questions are the ones that show up this ideology for the crap that it is.

What is a transwoman Hearach?

Are trans women male people who have transitioned - yes or no?

Is Hearach saying the answer is 'no'? I can't tell what their position actually is because they can't answer questions.

I can only assume they are asserting that trans women are either males who have not transitioned - so all male people - which is transphobic, or that they are biologically female, therefore cannot be trans as there is no "mismatch" between sex and gender.

Which is transphobic.

Only confirms my existing opinion of them. Poe's law though.

It's very interesting that to me that you still won't admit to being transphobic while also referring to trans women as "transitioned males".

Some of us prefer a three letter word beginning with M and ending with N.

Our beliefs (that people cannot change sex and that in some circumstances, sex matters) are worthy of respect in a democratic society as tested in a court of law.

If you stop imagining transphobia everywhere, you’ll probably be happier.

Really surprised you don't know there's a generational gap on many issues

I was thinking of this last night.

This actually highlights the differences in approaches.

While I ask to see original data, because I believe not only in checking everything a dishonest poster says, but also I don’t think there are insurmountable gaps in opinions between ‘generations’. I also look further and analyse all the data collected. And I find it fascinating to see how opinions change as a person get older and more exposed to the realities of life, rather than over simplified, absolutist, reactive thinking.

Yet, posters on this board are the ones painted to be narrow in vision, and pessimist by some others when it is clear, it is the other way around. Those who share opinions with Hearache, for instance, voice those pessimistic, divisive, absolutist and very intolerant opinions without pause.

They take everything they read as being unquestionable truth. Never having to check or to interpret something themselves.

The projection and gaslighting becomes so obvious when you see hearaches posts and realise how much they use sleight of hand, bad faith interpretations and generally, dishonesty, for whatever their real purpose is.

I still have my doubts. Because under scrutiny, Hearache’s posts aren’t actually supporting the LGBT community on anything but a very superficial level. Sometimes they don’t even reach that low bar at all.

It is a pattern oft repeated by extreme activists. I suspect that Hearache simply copies what they see on other social media platforms and doesn’t see the damage.

Because otherwise they really are someone who is deliberately trying to make the LGBT community look so intolerant, uninterested in truth and reality, unable to interact with anything but purity of thought and so unable to interact with facts through lack of skill, or determination to ignore, or other reasons.

And I find that bleak indeed.

Yes, I’d be interested in the original data too.

@Helleofabore
Indeed I believe earache is a one person peaking machine!

If we can tell that the man is a man, despite (or possibly because of) draggy traditional feminine gender coded stuff, rejected by lots on women, like frocks and makeup and wigs, then who is anyone to tell us that our own perceptions, out own senses, are wrong?

you still won't admit to being transphobic while also referring to trans women as "transitioned males"

What's "transphobic" about this factual term?

"It's very interesting that to me that you still won't admit to being transphobic while also referring to trans women as "transitioned males". When the shoe fits so perfectly, why not just own it?"

Genuine question.
What ARE they then?
What does the prefix "trans" mean, if it does not mean they are going (or think they are) from one sex to the other?
What are they transitioning from, and what are they transitioning TO?

The statement is factual. They ARE transitioned males, because male is a statement of biological reality.
Do you think you stop being male when you say that you are a trans woman?
What about all the trans women who happily still accept that they are, and always will be, male? Like Blair White and many others? Are they transphobes too?
Why is it (yawn) transphobic to acknowledge biological reality and fact? How can a fact be transphobic?
Surely you agree that transwomen are males who have transitioned, ergo they are transitioned males?
Otherwise.............what ARE they?

(BTW I know you are going to say "they are transwomen". What is a transwoman?)

As per my post, this little deviation is irrelevant to the discussion.

Which is about your continued use of absolutist statements about what you say the majority of the LGBT community believe.

You know what. Don’t bother.

As I said a couple of posts back, you have been making ridiculous statements that show clearly that you don’t understand how to rationally analyse data.

Anyone reading ’Poll 1,000 people aged 18-24 and they'll have different views to those aged over 65.’ is going to see you only ever take an absolutist view. It seems where you see what might be a modal data set (however small), you then wish to apply it to entire population segment in these statements.

You obviously think this way because that follows the statements you have been making thread after thread after thread, where you falsely claim That your opinions reflect the LGB community as a whole or for a large majority.

You have done the same here with these statements. And WTAF? We are not discussing Brexit and we are not discussing elections in these threads.

And you are continuing to talk about to opposing population segments and ignoring a huge population in the middle where the opinion is not as polarised. I can only conclude, You do this to continue to attempt to support your polarised thinking or you just don’t understand quantitative opinion research.

So. Again:

Your statements below are hyperbolic and simply unsupported:

Poll 1,000 people aged 18-24 and they'll have different views to those aged over 65.

Poll 1,000 LGBT people and they'll have different views to 1,000 straight people.

1,000 women will have different views to 1,000 men and as we saw in the EU referendum people in Scotland have different views to those in England and Wales on Brexit.

Because the scenarios you pose will not have 100% full support if it is truly representative of the total population of the segment within the UK. As I said upthread, there is a range of opinions and there will be overlap within all population segments in all but a few extreme scenarios.

You have made what seems to have been absolutist statements that are simply dishonest.

No, 1000 [insert segment as mentioned by hearache here] not will have opinions that can validly be extrapolated out to represent 100% of that population segment in the UK population. It may be valid to say x% of segment or to say the segment is more or less likely to hold that opinion. They will be unlikely to all have opinions that are dichotomous to the populations you are comparing that opinion with in your examples.

You then tried to walk that back with a softer ‘ I think you'll find young and old have very different views on those matters. ‘

Yes ‘some’ will. All? No.

Which has now become y%.

This is not supporting your original claim for ‘distinct’ (remember, you told us they were not ‘discrete’) opinions.

Yes. X% of 18-24 voters indicated they would /did vote labour (didn’t the % increase after announcing the uni fee policy amongst other massive promises?) It wasn’t 100%. There was overlap with opinions shared with the 60+ population.

Plus you ignored the population in the middle where again plenty of overlap and again no ‘100% of the population has x opinion’ statements that could be supported.

I don’t think you are convincing anyone with this line of discussion. But please do continue and we will just continue to go around and around.

You seem to like making dishonest absolutist, all or nothing, statements about what you believe all people who are LGB or TQ believe.

Those statements aren’t true and aren’t evidenced with any data.

Professor Sir John Curtice is this country's foremost expert in opinion polling. You can take his word for it.

Excellent. Hearache. You have confirmed that all transitioned males think that to be ‘woman’ they need to aspire to have ‘big tits’!

Thanks for admitting it on behalf of all trans people!

Winning all round here.

No. To the original data set please.

Come on, you are an quant research expert, please link me to only the orginal data.

*Have a Google how many people aged 18-24 voted for Brexit and then do the same for pensioners.+

Similarly, Google what % voted Tory at the last election and then do the same for pensioners.

I think you'll find young and old have very different views on those matters.

While I wait for the links, because I want to make sure I see the same data set that hearache is making these claims from. I have to ask what relevance is this now?

You were insisting on knowing exactly what all LGBT people supposedly think, making some very weird absolutist claims drawing from what I guess were polarized ‘average’ values in a population segment and then applying them to reflect the entire population segment which is a tactic no researcher is going to follow, let alone even endorse if they want to maintain any semblance of a future career.

Now you are making claims outside the LGBT community, when yesterday you attempted to discredit me while I was discussing a CPA study about tolerance amongst the UK population….

And still the hypocrisy continues….

You really are doing good work.

Thanks.

"many of us need educating about how the LGBT community think."

Very true.

Really surprised you don't know there's a generational gap on many issues:

"Just over 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds who voted in the referendum backed Remain, four major academic and commercial polls conducted shortly after the ballot agree, with just under 30% backing Leave.

"In contrast, only 40% of those aged 65 and over supported Remain, while 60% placed their cross against Leave."

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45098550

And:

"On the surface, the 2019 General Election result was a devastating defeat for younger voters. 18- to 24-year-olds again came out in strong support of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, but were heavily defeated. Over the past decade, young people in the UK have emerged as a cohesive political force – in strong support of Remain and Labour – but have suffered a string of electoral defeats."

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/young-cosmopolitans-and-ge2019/