Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

Every one of the "pro-trans" policies you list is already in place and entirely legal.
They lack no rights and DEI monitoring usually prioritises them, often to the detriment of other groups.

Trans friendly policies I'd support:

Being able to dress in clothes stereotypically associated with either sex

Extra provision (where possible) for trans friendly spaces - eg bathrooms/changing rooms, etc.

Provision for changing name easily (on company ID, etc)

Monitoring to ensure that trans employees are not unfairly disadvantaged with wages, promotions, etc.

Trans policies I will never support:

Forcing other people to refer to them by incorrect pronouns

Allowing trans people into spaces reserved for the opposite sex

Allowing trans propaganda at work (TWAW, flags except on special occasions, etc)

We need to understand what 'trans friendly policies' actually means.

What are these policies? Are they ensuring that people who identify as trans have the same rights as everyone else, or are we talking about extra rights that the rest of the population do not have that are based on 'feelings' rather than something tangible?

Do these rights involve any body modification that is desired? If so, from what age? Will people without a trans identity also get any body modification that they desire from the same age? Would this be on the NHS or Private?

Do they mean the eradication of single sex spaces? Getting rid of all sex based terminology?

The whole lot needs to be laid out clearly. No obfuscation, no lies and no pretending that this would have no impact on the rights of other groups.

I think politicians are in a difficult position. 'Trans friendly' policies would be popular in the media class, therefore would lead to favourable news coverage, but i dont know if the public would be as impressed?

And conversely, no trans friendly policies may annoy the media, but be unnoticed by the public.

I'm trying to think of possible trans friendly policies, but its difficult to think of ones that help trans people that don't impose on the rest of society or get involved in family life?

24Jules · Yesterday 18:12
Starmer won't push the Scottish self certification thing. And yes the left have plenty of interests. But trans friendly policy is a vote winner not a vote loser I think, so the left won't be pushing against trans either.

Really? I haven't seen anything to suggest that trans policies are vote winners. Even the whole Denton's thing acknowledged that the best way to get pro-trans legislation through was via something else (like attaching it to gay-rights legislation).

Having pro-trans policies gets you some very vocal activists, and politicians confuse those and Twitter with how the general population feel.

24Jules

Are you trans?

That is true. I had a RL conversation with someone recently who I think has only ever heard complete agreement from RL friends and online friends. They are all completely on the same page and no-one has ever thought about it in any way shape or form. These ideas are 'correct' so they don't need to think.

Of course the idea that Mumsnet is a hotbed of transphobia is a known 'fact' in these circles. Any dissent is of course 'transphobic' in their eyes, so again the need to think is removed.

But its easy to confuse the inept with trolling, too.

One of the strengths of this site is that ideas are challenging in a way that they arent in trans forums. So once their arguments are used here, they fall apart because they havent been tested, challenged and counter argued before.

The basic arguments are that trans people pass so well that they are in single sex spaces undetected, that women 'see' genuine trans people and invite them in, and that some men need to be in womens spaces because the threat of violence is high and disproportionately dangerous.

Notice that evidence isnt provided. Or for the fundamental idea that the need for self defined gendered spaces is more important than the need single sex spaces.

In trans forums, these are assumed without any reality checks, so when they arrive here they expect these assumptions to be take as facts or even relevant. They cant argue, so either argue points that dont help their case (showing some women commit sexual crimes doesnt support the need for gendered spaces), try to derail( look - AI, ask for explain for easily Googleable terms).

It's important to distinguish between legitimate requests for information and sealioning.

I personally think that if that poster was posting in good faith, they would have actually looked at the video I recommended. It became clear that they had not watched it (and I suspect had no intention to). So the conclusion that they were sealioning (even if they had not heard of the term) is reasonable.

I think this definition of sealioning is illustrative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I’ve been reading this thread, and wondering whether to say anything. I’m not sure whether you’re aware how you come across.

Someone jumps into a forum which has a years-long record of discussing, in detail and often with nuance, every conceivable aspect of a subject, and asks a reasonable question; but instead of entering into the ensuing debate, she (I assume) jumps in and out, asking yet more rather random questions, demanding answers to them all, and generally giving the impression that she is more interested in being argumentative than in really understanding the well-formed opinions of the regular posters. I’m not sure I’ve seen a thread in which one person has dragged the discussion this way and that to a greater extent. How about listening to replies and engaging with the arguments before shooting off on yet another tangent?

I have been reading back on this thread. Did anyone post the hips diagram?

There seems to be that resurgence of the myth that woman cannot more reliably than not identify male people, even with puberty blockers once they notice skeletal proportions, including brow ridges, and gait. There is a fucking chasm between identifying someone in a heavily curated situation that is designed to disguise the male body cues and real life interactions that allow free movement even without the voice.

AI doesn't think YET.

There's no point in asking it YET.

AI may become our modern Solomon.

AI doesn't think, so no point in asking it.

You tell me.

What will AI make of it all?

It's an ideology that constantly pushing boundaries and expecting everyone to keep up with a growing list of ridiculous demands and then claims transphobia when people have had enough.

Again, that speaks to the levels of disordered thinking that exist in the TRA movement. Narcissistic personalities can never be satisfied. No concession would ever be enough for them.

Ereshkigalangcleg

Extinction burst. Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting. I don't agree it will cause trans to fade out, but do agree the trend of ever increasing identities is unsustainable and frankly nuts.

Not of course to those who think that way though. So maybe we're watching a permanent shift in human behaviour and thinking.

Time will tell.

The problem trans ideology will always have is its inability to maintain a static ethos. What its claiming and what it wants changes to accommodate anyone who wants to be part of it. That's why politicians cause themselves so much embarrassment when they try to define women using the ideology.

Does being trans require a diagnosis, being able to pass, surgery, drugs, a name change?Is it even binary anymore?

When it was first discussed here, people used to claim they only wanted to be seen as women socially, and not use womens spaces. If anything that would make them stand out more and cause them distress. Now its forcing everyone to be either 'cis het man' or 'anyone else', where the anyone else can be in every womens space.

Its an ideology that constantly pushing boundaries and expecting everyone to keep up with a growing list of ridiculous demands and then claims transphobia when people have had enough. Its trying to make sex irrelevant when sex is relevant for so many people in so many situations.

I think it might have been the reference to G.B. that went too far, even in these enlightened times? And I suggested she be respected.

After having a good laugh at a pp who responded to an article on AGP with "but but... women can be AGP too". Hilarious and revealing.

Will this be deleted?

The left in Labour have more important issues than trans rights, I think Labour will delay any action on it until absolutely necessary, and as the days move on the trans trend loses power.

I agree the gender identity trend is losing steam, but I think it's likely to get worse before it gets better.

Extinction burst. A movement with such a high incidence of cluster B personality disorders in its followers is never going to fizzle out quietly.

What is an extinction burst?
An extinction burst is a sudden spike in the frequency of a behavior when the reinforcement for that behavior is removed. Because the action has produced a desirable result in the past, it is tried rapidly until it is clear the action no longer will result in the expected reward.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/extinction-burst-psychology.html

What did you say @ILikeDungs?

Starmer won't push the Scottish self certification thing. And yes the left have plenty of interests. But trans friendly policy is a vote winner not a vote loser I think, so the left won't be pushing against trans either.

So too is trans opposed policy, but only Sunak is pushing that to any extent, and has any chance of winning. But Sunak's chance of winning, is the same as the ice cube's chance of survival in hot water. He has two hopes. Bob Hope, and no hope. Bob Hope's dead.

An election may reveal who has most support; trans friendly or trans opposed. And if Starmer leaves the status quo in place, trans interest won't fade, it will continue to increase. Just as it has done since the gra 2004. Since then, the pressure has been to simplify and loosen the criteria. Unless policy is enacted that does the reverse, then trans will continue to grow.

And even if pressure is to reverse it, trans wont fade. It'll go quieter, but not fade out. The Gra won't be repealed though. If it's only a trend, it'll peter out when people lose interest. So far through history, that hasn't been the case. The opposite has been true.

You might say a genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting it back. Starmer (Labour anyway, even if Starmer is dumped) will be in for the next 10 years I think. Trans are safe with Starmer. I'd imagine he'll hoover up most of the entire lgbt vote.

That was quick