Some strange contradictory arguments from the TRA side

‘some people think [NB] are the most affected.

In which sense of the word?

The argument I'm seeing over and over, that I genuinely don't understand is "...particularly non binary people" tacked on at the end of a sentence about being erased,having their rights stripped away. I see this a lot from female NB people, what do they genuinely think they've lost?

They've lost the "most" rights, supposedly, but on reading it it looks like it confirms female NB people have had their rights around reproduction strengthened. Otherwise there were no special rights to being NB, fluid, questioning, GNC etc.The shades of grey were never enshrined in law, nobody thought they were but some people think they are the most affected.

‘some people think [NB] are the most affected.

In which sense of the word?

I supervise PhDs

Jane Fae was on Jeremy Vine's TV show this morning, running all the usual arguments and getting a lot of pandering, and came up with a new one:

Jane knows an old lady (trans) who would rather die than be admitted to a male hospital ward.

OLD LADIES WILL DIE 😱

Which is strange because mixed sex wards do exist, and we grumble about them, but I've never heard a woman say she'd rather die.

I supervise PhDs

Christiane Nusslein Volhard has a Nobel prize in medicine, and she's a terf.

I should say I have agonised endlessly over this issue because I know and love trans people. But in the end I can't get past the clash of rights - disability rights in particular. People with autism should not be reprimanded for saying a TW is NAW, for instance.

I do recognise some merit in some TRA arguments: I don't believe that "you can always tell", for instance, just like you can't tell if someone is wearing a good wig. I do think that people pass better than they did thirty years ago because of improvements in hormone technology and facial feminisation surgery etc. It sits at odds with me as a lifelong leftie to step outside the "be kind" camp. I have yet to see a TRA acknowledge any merit in TERF arguments though.

All I am thinking is what on earth goes on in men’s toilets that makes them so unsafe? Is this a real issue? Accept children should not go in unsupervised but adults?

toilets are designed by sex (female/male) not gender, which is why there are no urinals in female ones.

...quietly slides Royal Yachting Association Level 2 Powerboat Handling (Inshore Waters) certificate off the table...

A Nobel = Mornington Crescent, game over. 😁

If your going to refrence the 1.7% of the world who is born intersex as an argument for transgender people
Then why not consider the 3.5% of the population born with genetic abnormalities as part of science? People born with a missing limb, babies with 7 toes on each foot? Why are we not changing the normal common science to portray people being born with two arms and two legs

"Gender ideology is built on a pack of lies and circular arguments."
- Circumfrences

I'm always baffled that a truly concerning number of people still think that xx to equal a woman and xy to equal a man is an exclusive default, and then go on to to erroneously cling to it as though it were scientific fact.

I don't know your educational background, but at my school we learned about intersex and chromosomal variation not being tied exclusively to pubescent development in Biology when we were around 14. It was pretty fundamental science, to be honest.

So, when you - and others like you - make statements like this I have to ask... how basic is your science, exactly?

"Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not."
- Transdimensional

It's true that dangerous males will do precisely that, but the logical fallacy that this means women who were born as physical - physical, not biological (see intersex and chromosomal variation) - males will automatically present a risk.

As you rightly assert, dangerous men are not going to be deterred by a door bearing a sign of a person in a dress, but let's forego the bathroom entirely. If men intend to be predatory they need not use a woman's bathroom; they simply get a job in law enforcement, or work as a youth volunteer at a local church, or be your boss.

Let's be quite clear. This HC ruling has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women; you allowed yourselves to be led by bigots into alienating and scapegoating a vulnerable minority group who have done nothing to you and whose suffering you have neither the inclination or education to understand.

Christiane Nusslein Volhard has a Nobel prize in medicine, and she's a terf.

We have a winner!!!! 😁

I supervise PhDs

I supervise PhDs

"Gender ideology is built on a pack of lies and circular arguments."
- Circumfrences

I'm always baffled that a truly concerning number of people still think that xx to equal a woman and xy to equal a man is an exclusive default, and then go on to to erroneously cling to it as though it were scientific fact.

I don't know your educational background, but at my school we learned about intersex and chromosomal variation not being tied exclusively to pubescent development in Biology when we were around 14. It was pretty fundamental science, to be honest.

So, when you - and others like you - make statements like this I have to ask... how basic is your science, exactly?

"Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not."
- Transdimensional

It's true that dangerous males will do precisely that, but the logical fallacy that this means women who were born as physical - physical, not biological (see intersex and chromosomal variation) - males will automatically present a risk.

As you rightly assert, dangerous men are not going to be deterred by a door bearing a sign of a person in a dress, but let's forego the bathroom entirely. If men intend to be predatory they need not use a woman's bathroom; they simply get a job in law enforcement, or work as a youth volunteer at a local church, or be your boss.

Let's be quite clear. This HC ruling has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women; you allowed yourselves to be led by bigots into alienating and scapegoating a vulnerable minority group who have done nothing to you and whose suffering you have neither the inclination or education to understand.

How do you know whether someone has "had the op" or not when deciding whether to let them into the women's changing rooms?