Trans remembrance flags and SNP renews support for LGBTYS

yes, i understand this frustration and i promise i'm not trying to diminish it, i also get irate when im told im either transphobic or a traitor to my sex (ive been told both, often within the same conversation)

I don't judge arguments by the extremes, i dont measure trans people by the extreme TRA arguments and i dont believe most women's right activists seek to be transphobic either.

from my experience the vast majority of both groups are looking to find a solution that works? the loudest voices arent always speaking for the majority

sadmillenial Can't i be a woman who cares about sex based rights, which may sometimes clash with trans rights, but also care about trans rights? Can i do that without pretending that transphobia and anti-trans discrimination doesnt exist??

Pretending about anything doesn't do well here on FWR [or FS&G as I see it's called now] where great value is placed on facts, verifiable statistics, scientific evidence, that sort of thing.
So in answer to you question, no you don't have to pretend anything about transphobia and anti-trans discrimination, sticking to the facts is good enough.

wouldn't it be good to move away from a historic blame game and look to how we move forward together?

Of course. Women here have been trying to
'move forward' for over a decade. But up until very recently, we haven't even been allowed to discuss it, let alone move in any direction.

Women have been kicked off every site possible, including Reddit, Facebook, Twitter and Mumsnet. They've been arrested for using normal, and obviously completely legal words that TRAs don't like. They've been sued, attacked, hit, relentlessly threatened, doxxed and fired. It's been unbelievably scary for very many women.

Go to any TRAs and suggest a third space where you personally believe women might be entitled to single sex provision. Be reasonable, suggest dialogue, explain your argument.

Let us know how it goes.

but isn't this the very real and important discussion to be had about the tension between the protected characteristics of both sex and gender

Gender is not a protected characteristic.

Gender reassignment is but has repeated been determined NOT to change sex. It means you cannot treat a man differently from other men because they are undergoing gender reassignment. In other words you cannot ban a man who identifies as a woman from men’s changing rooms or men’s sports, but they have no right to women’s changing rooms or women’s sports.

go tell the TRAs and when they agree, come back to us. We have had this conversation countless times (go to a TRA reddit and suggest the PERFECTLY SENSIBLE 3rd spaces, and if you survive do come back and tell us about it)

Yes, you are so reasonable and the rest of us are completely unreasonable for being sick to the back teeth of never ever geting to the front of the queue.

wouldn't it be good to move away from a historic blame game and look to how we move forward together?

Feel free to also deliver that message to the trans activists on Reddit 🤷‍♀️

Because the way you worded it suggested that women here and our "side" in general were standing in the way of that discussion. You are suggesting something that women have long been asking for, it's not some new idea no one has thought of before.

i'm not pointing fingers or apportioning blame to any of this! i don't believe feminists have prevented this discussion, as you say.

wouldn't it be good to move away from a historic blame game and look to how we move forward together?

but isn't this the very real and important discussion to be had about the tension between the protected characteristics of both sex and gender, and this is the point at which they clash?

It's not feminist women who have prevented this discussion. Women have always asked for our rights, concerns, views and feelings to be taken into account but up until very recently they were distinctly second fiddle. It's trans rights activists who coined the slogan #NoDebate.

but isn't this the very real and important discussion to be had about the tension between the protected characteristics of both sex and gender, and this is the point at which they clash? This is the conversation i'm waiting to be had properly and fully, so far all politicians and legislatures seem happy to let this debate play out in public arenas where we all do their work for them and bear the emotional labour of a tough conversation

I believe both of these "characteristics" experience discrimination, and both should be protected, and I think the cowardice of politicians refusing to engage in the discussion leads to the instances you are talking of - a lack of transparency or true interrogation of trans sports, for example

i don't know why we have to only care about one part of the argument? Can't i be a woman who cares about sex based rights, which may sometimes clash with trans rights, but also care about trans rights? Can i do that without pretending that transphobia and anti-trans discrimination doesnt exist??

and to respond to another poster - yes, its horrendous that some women don't get HRT. (I dispute your claim that every trans woman does, based on my conversations with them) But i get it, i've been hideously delayed in my own diagnosis and treatment. I don't blame the very small numbers of trans healthcare for it. I blame a deeply misogynistic health care system that underfunds and undervalues women.

It is not discrimination to recognise someone’s sex

But we cant ignore the reality and lived experience of trans people to pretend they dont have very specific discrimination and that it's not ok.

Or

But we cant ignore the reality and lived experience of women to pretend they don't have very specific discrimination and that it's not ok.

which may be way more likely to happen? Certainly in terms of numbers anyway

Indeed.

'Discrimination' has become a dirty word. Many people wrongly read it as meaning 'prejudice' when it means to notice and act on difference.

Sometimes that is a legitimate thing to do, as described above.

But we cant ignore the reality and lived experience of trans people to pretend they dont have very specific discrimination and that it's not ok.

Yes, but the word discrimination means different things to different people.

For example, as has been mentioned up thread, KJK said in a video that landlords should avoid renting properties and employers should avoid giving jobs to people who identify as trans. This is unfair discrimination by legal standards and thankfully the law doesn't allow for this. Whilst KJK speaks a lot of sense on many things, I think she disappointed a lot of people with this video. There was a thread about it at the time and I was one of many who said she'd gone too far with these comments.

However, there are people who identify as trans who will stretch the boundaries of "discrimination" way out of shape when claiming to have been unfairly discriminated against. For example, apparently excluding transwomen from women's sports is unfair discrimination.

Technically, on a legal level, it is "discrimination". But the key point here is that it's legally permissable discrimination under the single sex exemption in the Equality Act. It's not unfair. It's an example of why the single sex exemption (or legally permitted discrimination) is allowed. When TRAs cry foul at this, it exposes their discrimination against women's right to fair sport. Ditto for other single sex exemptions, such as changing rooms, rape crisis centres, prisons and other places where we legally "discriminate" by sex.

It's not wrong to question and discuss, especially where democracy, government and balancing of different groups rights is concerned

Not only is it not wrong to question and discuss, for the sake of democracy it is vital that we do.

These are all reasons that government commemoration of TDOR is being questioned.

Not because anyone thinks it's inherently wrong for 'those pesky trans people to have a day' or just wanting to be 'unkind'.

As with a lot of related issues, it's more complex than it may first appear.

It's not wrong to question and discuss, especially where democracy, government and balancing of different groups rights is concerned

The determination of adult transactivists to use and weaponise vulnerable children in their pursuit of trans demands is shameful

It is. It's utterly repellent and irresponsible.

Remember ‘trans remembrance day’ hardly sits in isolation - a single event to consider transgender people. There is also trans ‘history’ month, trans pride month, general pride month focusing on trans taking place over several (most?) months, trans awareness month, trans awareness week, international day of transgender visibility, IDAHOBITA, various non-binary events, queer day, trans parent day…

It's worth noting that when we extrapolate the TDOR figures to try to figure out the approximate number of deaths per capita among the trans population and compare it to the number of deaths per capita among the population in general, not only do we tend to see that the rate is lower in the trans population, but we're usually using homicide statistics for the rest of the population when we do so. If we added general suicide and drug related deaths in the rest of the population to that tally the difference would probably be even starker.

Just to add some further information in response to @suggestionsplease1 exceptionally irresponsible comments about teenagers and suicide.
In the UK all child deaths are subject to a statutory Child Death Review process where causation is analysed in depth. It's why Prof Louis Appleby was able to dismiss previous shroud waving allegations from tranactivists about teenagers and suicide in relation to pbs:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust-independent-report

The determination of adult transactivists to use and weaponise vulnerable children in their pursuit of trans demands is shameful

.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-day-of-remembrance-why-we-rememberbb_2166234

Saying "trans murder is not the only purpose of the day" is an attempt to rewrite history to suit your own argument. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know much about it.

I don't know how the discussion became solely about murder rates, because that isn't the purpose of the day - Its about lives lost through violence, discrimination and other inequalities.

This is total scope creep. It was founded to memorialise murdered people. So you are wrong in saying it's the purpose of the day.

A PP asked is my argument that we shouldn't commemorate trans day of remembrance unless there's evidence that trans people are more likely to be murdered?

My argument is that we need some rules. Why would we commemorate a group that is no more likely to die than any other? What triggers the government to commemorate one group but not another.

What message does that send?

What are the rules that determine when a public body will commemorate a day and when it won't?

Because at the moment it seems to be whoever has the ear of government gets their day of choice commemorated.

And that has ramifications, the first of which is it doesn't seem very democratic. What other decisions are the government making that aren't very democratic?

In all of these pages, I still haven't read a good argument as to why the government should choose to mark this day, but not the many others that represent a far bigger proportion of the population.

Surely that gives a certain message about priorities?

Exactly this.