Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

Twylitette · Today 15:09

But one case wouldn't do it for those who actually have to make laws, -- fortunately.

And of those cases, how many are actually really trans, and not merely sexually violent criminal men, using a mad freedom to game the system? Surely that's been the big failing in Scotland of self certification without a proper process. And why it isn't likely that Labour or anybody else will follow it

I would like to see the numbers stat's for atacks by genuine trans women, who have gone through a proper length transition. No doubt there must be some, but how many?

1 case? I linked to 2 cases above. 1 woman raped 2 underage boys. Should that one case exclude all women from teaching young boys? Of course not.

Should all young girls fear young women, lest they pretend to be men? Of course not.

If there is substantial evidence that proves trans women are a threat to all women, I'm suprised it hasn't been in the main news.

There's some high profile cases of women being assaulted in raped by transwomen in women's prisons which can be easily googled. Not sure what numbers would need to be to justify action. 1 would do it for me

Let me take a guess, it will be n+1 here.

This is also not comparing like with like. A man being turned on by the idea of himself as woman (a fantasy, usually based on sexist stereotypes, ideas of forced feminisation, sissy porn etc.) is not in any way the same as a woman being turned on by her actual real female body (having sexy thoughts while having actual female body about that actual female body).

This. It's a completely ridiculous, typically gaslighty TRA talking point.

Nothing sensible to add then?

On the contrary, I think @ILikeDungs post is pretty useful.

EasternStandard
Such a vote wouldn't be only men. And anyway, I think many men would vote no. Is such a vote likely though?

ILikeDungs.
Nothing sensible to add then?

redsplodge.
Don't you accept that being gay is not an ideology or a choice then? Really? If not, on what grounds?

Not a red herring at all. If a component or an area of the brain were identified, that only appears in the brains of trans people, it would shoot the "ideology" theory down in flames.

No the brain is not well understood. Nothing like well understood. Which is precisely why, to rule out transgender as having a biological basis, is more than a little shortsighted. Not finding evidence, does not mean that no evidence exists. The main evidence so far, is the persistent existence of trans people for many thousands of years. Nobody can deny that they exist. Just as many attempts were made to erradicate/supress homosexuality which failed, so too trans people stubbornly don't disappear with time or resistance to them. They persist still in all cultures. There is a reason for that, even if nobody knows what that reason is yet. You don't and I don't. As regards a trans woman being female, all of these are just words. Yes, as far as our current definitions go, we use the word female to describe a certain set of conditions. But our definitions may change to inckude or exclude, depending on discoveries, -- and events.

So it may matter not. If Keegan is not alone, and she isn't, in accepting that a fully transitioned trans woman is a woman, and is considered woman enough to be free to access women's spaces, then the delineation between sex and gender will be rendered less important/blurred. That will be an affront to some, others won't mind.

Some will predict great harm. Others will disagree. And then we'll all have to wait to see if any great harm follows.

There's some high profile cases of women being assaulted in raped by transwomen in women's prisons which can be easily googled. Not sure what numbers would need to be to justify action. 1 would do it for me 🤷‍♀️

Can someone point me to reliable proven numbers of women being attacked by trans men or women, in a woman's safe space? How many offences? How many proven? How many convicted?

Where can I find those numbers?

"Nobody sensible now doubts that gay is biologically based, and not a choice or an ideology. That may yet be proven to be the case for trans people too. Or it may not."

A biological basis for being trans would be......a biological basis for being trans. It's not proof that a transwoman is biologically female. It's a complete red herring.

"2008 Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex" "2017 Biochemical evidence to support this effect was confirmed"

And this is an oversimplification of the studies. There are similarities in some areas, yes. Other areas of the brain are still to be studied, the impact of those differences is not well understood yet and brain plasticity is a complication given that brain scans of healthy newborns is not routine.

I don’t see why men should be allowed to access women’s spaces because they vote to do so. Don’t people care about women’s safety? Single sex spaces are not there as an historical anomaly. They are to protect women from male/male bodied people predating on them. They are there to allow women to take part in public life.

I imagine Labour will do their usual thing and say as little as possible.

I may have missed it.

Has there been any official Labour complaining/criticism, of what Keegan said to Barnett, regarding trans women are women, if fully surgically reassigned/altered?

A vote on who can access women’s spaces sounds a good idea to me

" we have to understand reality when making laws or policy where sex is an important factor."

Until people form a different opinion, as many have done.

And then the "have to"s and "essential"s you think important, cease to be important to those people who don't think so.

In a democracy, the majority view will prevail; like it/accept, or not.

Perhaps we'll know soon with a Labour manifesto, or after October/November, when Labour are HMG.

'Phisically, when born, a trans women is a male. A trans man is a female.'

They remain so, no matter what cross-sex hormones they take and no matter what surgery they have. Accepting the reality that peole can identify how they like, but mammals (including human beings) cannot change sex is essential, because sometimes sex matters and we have to understand reality when making laws or policy where sex is an important factor.

A simple example would be working out who the NHS should give PSA (prostate) tests to. There is no point in sending anyone who is female (including transmen) for a PSA test as that would just be a waste of money. Males of the right age range should all be tested though, this of course includes transwomen who are male and still have their prostate as it is not removed during vaginoplasty. It would not be good to miss out these people from PSA tests as early detection of prostate cancer is an imporant factor regarding survival rates.

Regarding the history of Transgender people, it appears that the Trans Umbrella has pulled under it anyone who doesn't fit their idea of 'Cis people' and called them 'Trans'. It wasn't that long ago that Transvestites were distinct from Transexuals, but these are also in the overarching group of 'Trans' along with eunachs, effeminate gay men, butch lesbians, anyone who ever wondered if they would be happier as the opposite sex and so on. I guess the historical Skoptsy cult in Russia and Castrati (Castrato) singers have now been dragged under the umbrella too. Joan of Ark has, so why not them. Yay for Historical revisionism!

I can remember learning about ancient China and how there was foot-binding (horrible thing done to female children) and eunachs (horrible thing done to males) and how thankfully these were not done now. Who knew then that 'eunach identity' would be added to WPATH's SOC8 and that orchidectomy would be argued for as progressive?

Look how the 'Eunach Maker' has been treated (jailed) compared to people asking for the same thing but with an ideology attached.

Huge amount discussed about how men and trans women are a danger to women.

Meanwhile.

Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-69026069

"Woman who pretended to be man to sexually assault teenager ‘put victim through hell’"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/georgia-bilham-sentencing-cheshire-chester-court-b2395222.html

Of course, a minority, some men, and some trans people are dangerous and criminal, and assualt both women and men physically and sexually. But what are the reliable and proven statistics? Aside from the very few well known cases, of trans attacking/raping women, for example Adam Binnie Bryson, --

Can someone point me to reliable proven numbers of women being attacked by trans men or women, in a woman's safe space? How many offences? How many proven? How many convicted?

Where can I find those numbers?

Yes the GRA is the reason we have these harmful outcomes for women and children.

Labour can certainly own that very poor legislation.

I don’t think it’s completely robust although Labour will defend it

EasternStandard

Yes. Labour made a HUGE change regarding trans under Blair. And short of ww3, Starmer will continue in the same direction. I see no evidence of a reversal from the basic position of trans transitioning and rights. Self certification or id or whatever it's called, isn't entirely dead either.

Slow is sometimes so slow, that it's static. Meanwhile, what was temporary, becomes permanent for a long time, and impossible to reverse.

"Time to Move Beyond "Gender Is Socially Constructed"
Contradictions of sex and gender"

"Sex is the biological apparatus.

The construction of gender identity is a psychological process. (It is also a biological process; all psychological processes are biological processes—but not all biological processes are psychological processes.) "

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/old-school-parenting-modern-day-families/201907/time-move-beyond-gender-is-socially-constructed

Societies do change. Women point out the harms of gender and that safeguarding children counts.

And we see political change, slowly but it’s there.

And societies evolve. They are fluid. What went before is past. This is now. Gay was a mental illness until recently. 1990. Now there is even scientific evidence in support of homosexuality. "2008 Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex" "2017 Biochemical evidence to support this effect was confirmed --" .

Nobody sensible now doubts that gay is biologically based, and not a choice or an ideology. That may yet be proven to be the case for trans people too. Or it may not.

I don't know, and nobody here knows, the exact cause of why trans people exist, and have existed for thousands of years. And since we evolved, and were not created, must have existed in some form, for far longer than just a few thousands of years. To suggest that it's recent, is not sensible either. Cave people didn't understand many things. Nor did those of 1900. Estrogen wasn't even isolated until 1929. So what?

Transgender history
Accounts of transgender people (including non-binary and third gender people) have been identified going back to ancient times in cultures worldwide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenderhistory

Hijra 4000 years ago.
https://reclamationmagazine.com/2020/06/29/hijras-the-age-old-transgender-community-in-south-asian-culture/

Of course modern societies exploit modern discoveries and explanations. Research into trans people's brains, still in it's infancy, may prove you right. Or it may prove you wrong. It's ongoing research. A lack of results, doesn't explain trans one way or the other.

Meanwhile, trans people exist, unexplained or not, and this being a democracy, what rights they have or lose, will be decided by voting. Of course safe spaces are important. Nobody sensible says it isn't important. Even trans people agree as I understand it.

A definition of something may remain fixed for millenia. And then it may change. It doesn't upset me one way or the other, if trans women are called women or not. A rose is a rose and all that. They will still exist no matter what label they carry, and increasingly society is, broadly happy to accomodate them; -- because in our democracy, that appears to be what the majority support.

That may yet change of course. But on the evidence so far, the incoming Labour government isn't going to reduce trans rights. They are more likely to maintain them or even stengthen them.

Phisically, when born, a trans women is a male. A trans man is a female. Logically yes. Depending on exactly what constitutes the definition of male/female, I don't see why there should be an argument about that.

The degree to which it's accepted, that surgery changes the equation, is conentious.

This thread, started about Keegan arguing with Barnett, that having full reassignment surgery makes Keegan happy to call a trans woman a woman, and a trans man a man.

But gender seems to be the big issue. Does gender exist, what ecactly is it, and is there a biological basis for it? Simply calling it an ideology doesn't explain it and doesn't solve any problems. Esp's since ideologirs of various kinds habe persisted for millenia.

What are the oldest ideologies? Religions? I don't see those disappearing anytime soon.

As to gender expression, it felt more free before 'Gender Identity Ideology' reared its ugly head. Back when you could genderbend and it was just clothes and make-up. Glam, the New Romantics, Hair Metal, Bowie, Annie Lennox etc.

We are a democracy. Majorities prevail. Maybe all this will become a major issue in the coming general election. If so we might get a clearer picture of what the majority of people find acceptable and what they don't.

Safeguarding prevails.

Men cannot change sex and women and girls need and want sex segregated spaces for their saftey and dignity.

It doesn't matter what the major issues of an election are, safeguarding provails.

A transwoman is still and always will be a male person.

If you are going to assert the following, you need to define 'trans' because Stone Age people were not making bath tub oestrogen and having vaginoplasty and phalloplasty operations. Cave paintings have not given us enough insight into the thoughts of the people who made them for us to conclude that 'trans' was a concept that they had come up with and understood. So what exactly do you mean and what is your (high quality) evidence?

'Trans like people have existed throughout human history in all cultures and societies. Some embraced and some rejected. The point is they still exist, and can't be erradicated.'

The raging agp debate proves nothing either way. It's a theory, with insufficient proof to back it up. And are trans men driven by their version of AGP too? I confess, I don't know how much it matters. If trans woman has vaginoplasty, and gets aroused internally, does it matter? It doesn't matter to me, that I know. I couldn't care less.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934690

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mvQjpu7iFnqQ47Lbp/autogynephilia-discourse-is-so-absurdly-bad-on-all-sides

Nobody has explained exactly what causes gender dysphoria have they? It simply isn't understood. Where is the proof that it's all due to AGP? Trans like people have existed throughout human history in all cultures and societies. Some embraced and some rejected. The point is they still exist, and can't be erradicated.

Nobody here supported my suggestion of making transgender transitioning illegal.

So the argument is only really about how everybody gets along it seems to me. And given how younger generations particularly, accept a huge variety of gender expressions (most of which I don't understand at all but they seem to), I think people will, like it or not, have to accept that trans rights are here to stay.

We are a democracy. Majorities prevail. Maybe all this will become a major issue in the coming general election. If so we might get a clearer picture of what the majority of people find acceptable and what they don't.

But this is informative I think.

"Britons do not have blanket stances on trans issues"

"Few Britons have blanket views on trans rights one way or the other - most people have permissive views in some areas but not in others"
^yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1^

Why did you miss out this bit from the abstract?

'Autogynephilia, an erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, has been described as a sexual interest of some male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs); the term has not been applied to natal women. To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis.'

This is also not comparing like with like. A man being turned on by the idea of himself as woman (a fantasy, usually based on sexist stereotypes, ideas of forced feminisation, sissy porn etc.) is not in any way the same as a woman being turned on by her actual real female body (having sexy thoughts while having actual female body about that actual female body). I would love to see the questions on that questionnaire.

The female version is Autoandrophilia.

I wonder how many questionnaires have been sent to men asking them about their 'Autoandrophilia'?