Why do all trans discussions end in a bun fight?

We aren't antitrans.

We are saying that sex exists and we should be able to always defend on the basis of sex.

You seem to think this is antitrans despite the actual law.

I presume it's because you realise that if you are open about your fear and loathing of trans people this 'discussion' space will be shut down.

And I’m not sure why people think being university educated means their thinking can’t be challenged. It’s not the definitive marker they think it is. As in all walks of life there are plenty of examples of university educated people who useless - just look at many of the world leaders!

So no answer as to how believing that males should be classed as women isn't an ideology, value judgements on its destructive nature or not aside?

No one is attacking trans people. We are gender critical which is a belief protected by law. HTH

I wonder what it is that makes posters here so reluctant to face being transphobic or anti trans. It seems like a strange phenomenon to be able to happily attack trans people for being part of a destructive ideology and then innocently claim you aren't anti trans people. It's bizarre.

Cambridge what?

What do you think being trans is?
According to Stonewall, you first need to accept that there are gender identities that match the two sexes.... would you agree with this?

You genuinely don't seem to know @Blanketyre !?

Being Trans IS following an ideology.

How can you enter into a discussion about being trans and not even know this?!

Literally impossible. That's the point.

Fair enough.
But that doesn’t make us ‘transphobic’ to talk about our cause.

Does it make you a misogynist because you don’t agree that women’s rights are being eroded? No, and it would be wrong to say that.

Name calling occurs on both sides but those that do it are part of the problem.

How could they not follow the ideology? How do you see that working @Blanketyre ?

Do you think some trans people don't follow this 'ideology'?

Because if not, and you think the ideology is destructive and harmful, ergo you think trans people themselves are destructive and harmful.

You’ve literally been given examples of how a belief system - which no one has to believe in or adhere to if they don’t want to, like religion - is harmful and yet still the ‘yeah it’s anti trans’. With no explanation as to why.

How? The point is that purpose of trans is to remove sex as a group and replace it with gender. This by default says that any reference to sex is 'anti-trans' therefore means that trans is actually fundamentally anti-woman because it removes the legal protection under the equality act of the category of sex.

Therefore trans is an anti woman movement or a mens rights activism because it removes the ability for women to defend themselves using the classification of sex whilst calling them bigoted for defending themselves.

That's not ok.

And ultimately in this, trans identity does not remove sex. Just the ability to talk about sex.

It can not be 'anti-trans' if you essentially are saying that women no longer have the right to name sex which still exist regardless of identity.

Sex continues to be relevant whether you like it or not.

It might offer an explanation though - we have seen how this ideology has been allowed to proliferate there, how members of the university have tried to destroy free speech on its behalf and cancel speakers who are critical of it.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/cancel-culture-leads-cambridge-to-offer-lessons-on-free-speech-0g8rkhp3z

Could you tell us why you hold the belief that a male human can have a womanly gender soul that overrides the material reality of their biological sex please?

Jane held Starmer to account on the radio over this so I don't think she holds that belief!

Because it can be extremely confusing. I often have to work back through a comment to unravel which sex and which gender is being discussed and in what way.

Because you said you didn't understand how it was an ideology, so I'm trying to explain.

Do you agree that to be trans you need to believe that there are gender identities that match the sexes?

Trans is an ideology. And a harmful destructive one at that

I mean, if that's not anti trans I don't know what is.

You think an ideology that tells young women they can identify out of womanhood by cutting their hair, wearing “men’s clothes” (whatever they might be beyond trousers and shirts that lots of women wear) taking testosterone so they lose their fertility by entering early menopause and cutting off their healthy breasts isn’t dangerous??

I would class that comment as a well evidenced fact and an example of freedom of speech.

So you've not got any evidence of the "anti trans sentiment" then just more waffle, allegations and insults.
Funny how it always goes this way when TRAs come on this board and accuse us of transphobia. They never have any receipts because we aren't transphobic, we're just pro women (the old fashioned kind) and anti child experimentation and forced religious conversion

Why aren't you asking the poster of this comment if they know what trans is, as they are the one saying trans is harmful?

Right so you say it’s anti trans but also
can’t say why it’s anti trans. Why say something you can’t back up, define or explain? Makes you look a bit silly.

It’s anti men in women’s spaces and sports, regardless how one identifies. I don’t see any posters rejecting females in their spaces, regardless of how they identify. Trans men are usually autistic. This ideology has allowed males to be in women’s sports despite the physiological differences, to be in and in charge of rape crisis centres where women definitely don’t want to around males, changing rooms where women of particular religions can’t be around males. I don’t want to be in a state of undress either around males. What they identify as doesn’t trump women’s rights to single sex spaces.

It’s a males problem. Not trans.

I could on but to be honest I’m very bored dealing with people like you who trot out ‘waaah you're all anti trans’ without any intelligent reason, examples or debating skills.