Trans: the new ideology of the ruling class (article)

I’m quite a bit taller than the average male on that graph. What does that mean for me in terms of public toilet use? Will my height be a problem for you?

And men stayed out of the ladies, and didn't expect women to abandon all their needs and accept that men went where they wanted, did what they wanted and used women as they wanted. I miss those times.

It's a shame you're not more focused on the needs of women then as opposed to seeing the main issue being women having boundaries and consent issues that inconvenience men who have no respect for women.

This high.

.. you should see some of the guys I’ve met ! Testosterone and weight training does a lot.

What height are we? Out of curiosity? I’m in a family of very tall women.

Well, there's nothing big about trans men for a start. They're the same height we are. And I'm more than happy to share my space with the very hairiest of women.

The reality is you would be equally unhappy to see a big, hairy trans man in there. Where do you expect these people to piss?

Since when were toilets ever described as ‘single sex spaces’ before all of this commotion. You just went into the men’s or the ladies.

I can promise you I am the opposite of a ’male supremacist,’ I am a lesbian, every person close to me is a woman.

If it is a single sex space you are only consenting to sharing that space with members of your own sex.

This is why single sex spaces exist.

A single sex public space is designed for the privacy, dignity and accessibility of women.

You are arguing to remove those women's rights to not be used by men. Your beef is that men aren't getting what they want from those women.

It's an interesting but rather grubby pov really. And certainly a rather male supremacist one.

Yes. You do not own public toilets.
How you are willing to let others treat you or approach you, not a public space.

Anyone entering a private space, like a cubicle, while someone is undressing is of course a violation. But when you are walking around a public space naked you are consenting to the possibility of someone seeing you. You don’t get to choose who, it is a public space.

In fact the question has to be asked: why, when the situation is someone wanting to break the boundaries of a woman to meet their own needs, with all the disregard for her feelings and sense of safety that involves....

would that be phrased as the woman being wrong for having boundaries that the male dislikes?

As opposed to the male having a major failure of all social skills, having no respect or empathy for the woman at all, and putting up a number of red flags? People who dislike other people's boundaries generally do so because they find them inconvenient barriers to illtreating the person in the way that they want to.

A boundary is a statement about your own actions, what you are willing to do, to engage or not engage in.

No, a boundary is the mark of your limits of how you are willing and able to let others treat you or approach you.

A male, insisting on entering a space where a woman is undressing, and she is not consenting to his presence and experiencing this as a major breach of her privacy and dignity, not to mention additional reasons such as trauma, disability, faith, culture and belief, is yes, violating her boundaries.

In order to meet his own needs. Which is to use her in this space. Whether as a prop or a validation tool or for any other means is irrelevant: he wishes to make use of her and does not see her consent as relevant or her humanity as equal to his.

I mean how many boundaries do you want violated in one action? There are multiple there.

We don't have toilets segregated by hair colour.

A boundary is a statement about your own actions, what you are willing to do, to engage or not engage in.

What you want is to control what other people do. That’s different.

Me expressing that I don’t want any blonde women using public toilets is not a personal boundary.

I am all in favour of trans rights and delighted that trans people already have the same rights as everyone else.

None of the things we are discussing are rights, however.

It woudl be a pity if it became class based. I am a Tory Remainer for example. I am in favour of freedoms - not something Labour or the Tories were keen on during Covid. Like most people I am a mixture of views not pigeonholed into one box. I have never had any problems with trans people but do not want their rights trumping women's rights - real women.

Agree re "woke"

Much like the concepts of intersectionality, feminism and LGBTQ, I don't think it was coined to centre society's most powerful demographic. And yet increasingly now, it does.

good article

That’s right – the ‘inappropriate behaviour’ belongs not to the hulking bloke making his way into a woman’s toilet, but to the woman who says, ‘Back off, love’. This is a rank moral inversion.

the whole thing is eminently sensible but that seemed most so to me

I think the Brexit stuff works when you consider my above point about trusting sources and authority.

Both middle classes and working classes are guilty of not doing their research.

What annoyed me about Brexit was the suspension of reality by the ideologs. But when you actually bothered to talk to more working class Brexit voters it became very apparent very quickly there was an issue with the 'left behind' issue and that had been piggybacked onto the ideology of Brexit (which was bullshit). This was actually ignored by a certain section of the most hard core Remainers - I ultimately had a massive issue with this group and their tone deafness. And we see that mirrored again with the trans issue.

I would argue that middle classes are more vulnerable to the pressure to conform. The keeping up with the Jones's and fitting in and not rocking the boat mentality. As well as a naive trust that the 'powers that be' wouldn't say this is fine and doesn't harm anyone' without first checking if that was true in a rational properly assessed way. Therefore they don't need to check what they are told is correct or not and are more likely to accept at face value.

It is a good, interesting article, although whenever “woke” enters I sigh and roll my eyes, why do they do it? It doesn’t ever add to an argument and for me actively detracts from it. So annoying, so lazy. I’m woke in the old-fashioned sense - alert to injustice - lots of people are woke even if they’d never describe themselves as such. If woke now means pro-gender ideology they should bloody well announce it, so we can #RevokeTheWoke.

Absolutely, I don't disagree with any of that but the pros and cons of EU membership are incredibly complex and I actually don't think there's any shame in admitting that you don't understand all or even any of it. It's a complex issue which was almost simultaneously misrepresented to the electorate as simple ("Brexit means Brexit. Take back control. We send £350 million a week to the EU, let's fund the NHS instead.") by Brexiters and complicated ("Too complicated for plebs like you to understand so shut up and listen to the experts.") by remainers.

And now a lot of the same people who supported remain are talking down to the same people who voted leave over trans issues. Although in this case, there's a slight difference which is that the same side are now presenting it as either simple ("Trans women are women, no debate.") or complicated ("Sex and gender are not the same. You do have a gender identity even if you think you don't, it just means you have cis privilege. Sex isn't binary, it's much more complicated than that, intersex people, chromosomes, blah blah blah..."), largely depending on how much pushback they're getting. And then if all else fails they resort to just calling people bigots.

But the really crucial difference here is that the EU was actually a complex issue. Remainers could and should have been less patronising about it, but it was undeniably complex and beyond most people's level of understanding.

This isn't.

This is actually a fairly simple thing that some people are pretending is complicated. Some male people believe they should be allowed in women's spaces and women's sports because of how they feel inside, and so we are all now expected to go along with the idea that a woman is something other than a member of the childbearing sex, otherwise some people will be upset.

It really isn't any more complex than that.

It is currently the voice of leftist politics in general.

They have special pets - the disabled, the working class, LGBT at the moment - who are there as a kind of social status symbol of how very progressive and caring they are. And yet when you look at how those groups are spoken of and how they are treated if they get out of the box, use their voices to go off message? They are immediately put back in their place. They are for patronising and using, not for actual equality.

Look at how those shouting Labour policies - that very young Labour 'women's officer' for one - immediately spin around and come out with the most vile and derisive prejudice when one of that group dares to say something unhelpful to their agenda. For example

• that Muslim women who cannot use mixed sex spaces just need to abandon their patriarchal religion on command because someone more educated and superior to them said so, which means by extension leaving their home, their family, their culture, all the many issues there - but the issue for the person speaking is that all of this prevents a man getting what he wants, which is that woman removing her knickers in a toilet where he is present.
• That women's refuges are a wonderful thing and absolutely as a nice progressive Labour person huge support, look at me supporting - how often have we all seen that virtue signalling performance? But those women can die at home at the hands of their partner for not getting over their trauma and going to a refuge with men in it. Because those men wanted to be there, and aren't expected to get over anything or ever consider others.
• That God help you if you don't loudly shout that you support gay marriage but homosexual women need to do men who identify women because it's so nasty and mean to gatekeep their body from validating the needs of a man, and they should expect punishment and ill treatment if they don't adapt to a 'better' meaning of homosexual (which is basically that nice people aren't.)

It's beyond revolting when unpicked. They are empty words, marketing, so thin and superficial that it falls apart to the slightest touch. There are no real values or understanding beneath. There is however a fixed belief in the innate superiority and right to know better than others, and that if you do not agree you are not of the right class, are beneath them, and need to be made and punished into the way that your betters see fit.

It's very Victorian Upper Class with the servants.

I also think that the reason middle-class, educated people are susceptible to falling for trans ideology is not just tribalism, though that's part of it. It's that all the complicated explanations about gender and sex and so on sound clever and sophisticated, and if you parrot them, you can kid yourself that you are so much smarter than the dimwits who think there are only two sexes, and that humans can't change sex.

This. Social status seeking has played a huge part in all this.

Interesting the comparison with Brexit. As a working-class Remain voter (yes, we do exist, although you'd never think so to listen to the TV news), I'm going to disagree a little with @MargotBamborough . My argument at the time was that the claims of wages being depressed by immigration were arguably exaggerated, and even of they weren't,

a) All governments want immigration, even when they claim they don't. Tories who suggested to people, we'll send the Poles back home, would only replace them with more immigration from India or Pakistan, and how do you like those apples? Which is exactly what happened. Tories had been promising for years to cut immigration, remember Theresa May? And she didn't of course.

b) Do you really think Leave will result in an economic bonanza, when when we've just made trade with our nearest partners more difficult?

c) The Labour Party and the unions cravenly tacitly accepted the govt's view. Rather than appeal to the best motives of working people, they appealed to fear, and xenophobia. Why shouldn't working-class kids get the chance to go to uni in Paris or Barcelona? The only difference Brexit has made to w-c people is, gaps on the shelves in the supermarkets and longer queues at the airport going on holiday.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I wish the Labour Party, and the left in general, would be straight with people. IMO, they could have argued honestly for Remain, which would have been, on balance, to the benefit of Brits of all social classes. But they didn't. Just like they are not prepared to speak honestly to women, with Starmer unable to say what a woman is, until he's put it through the latest focus group. My contempt for them could not be greater. For all the reservations I have about the Spiked crew, BON is right on this.