Why is anti-trans so important?

I keep going back to principle rather than anecdote:
no man can become a woman. It's not possible.

So regardless of whether he is Dylan Mulvaney or Isla Bryson or Pete the plumber, a 'genuine' transwoman or a 'fake' one who has just been sentenced and wants to get into a women's prison..

If you stick to the scientific fact that NO man can become a woman, the actual appearance, mannerisms, behaviour, head tilt , clothing, earrings and the motivation of the man in question is beside the point.

If a facility or a service is single sex and is designated for biological women, he doesn't belong there, full stop, as a matter of principle.

I don't have the answer to your question to hand, but @Waitwhat23 may have.

However, If you would like to relive the frustration of the women on this board concerning the GRR bill at the time via the medium of poetry...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C129WKDD

Michelle Thomson for the first.

Russell Findlay for the second.

I'll get the relevant voting details from the SG website this evening.

Do you know who tabled the amendments? Terrible to think I was so unaware of this travesty taking place.

And during the GRR bill debate, the following amendments were suggested -

an amendment to pause an application for a GRC for those charged with rape or sexual assault which was defeated by the casting vote of the Presiding Officer.

An amendment which sought to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender.

Both voted down.

In fact, there were over 150 amendments, discussed over a ridiculously short 2 days, with the majority voted down, including a suggestion to yearly monitor the effects of the GRR Bill on women and girls rights.

It actually beggars belief.

When exploring the topic of genuine and not genuine transwomen, really what is it?

Is Sarah Baker ‘genuine’ or not?

Duration? long time
Commitment? removed own testicles, organises protests and consults on behalf of community.
Presentation? Wears whatever, not necessarily ‘female’ presenting, and we only know about surgery because of reporting of self surgery.

What?

I don't know. Don't care really. There are women. And there are men. Transwomen, of any sort, are men who are not women. Some are pretending they are women, some genuinely think they are women. But they're not women.

My son genuinely thinks that he is hard done by because I insist on bedtime at a certain time. Doesn't mean he's right or that I have to pander to his thinking.

But there are people who think it DOES make a difference and I'm fascinated by how they can just ignore the evidence of men getting off on wearing women's clothes or invading women's spaces. It's not exactly hidden frankly.

What defines a real pretend women, as opposed to a pretend pretend women?

Honestly, I think for all the peopl ewho worry about "Real" transwomen (and as I posted pages ago - I get it... I felt that way too until I peaked), you just have to look at the coverage of any rally/protest that includes transwomen to know that the ones who are screaming loudest, are also the ones that are most obviously not "real". Don't get me wrong, I agree with other posters - we don't know what the average trans woman is thinking and a man is a man is a man.

But the cognitive dissonance that must take place when watching/attending such an event and trying to onvince yourself that "real" transwomen are victims while looking at a bunch of hairy blokes dressed as caricatures of women must be mind blowing.

As others have said it's a women's rights issue, for me a part of why I am so passionate about it is that I was in an abusive marriage where I was gaslit horrendously and there is no way that will happen to me again especially from government / authorities, I will not accept a distortion of truth.

Is part of the issue also that some people don’t like to hear that they are gate keeping who is and isn’t transgender according to their personal definition when they talk about ‘true’, ‘genuine’, ‘sincerely’, ‘committed’ people with transgender identities? They are uncomfortable with acknowledging that this is the outcome of their opinion and cannot acknowledge this because they have this amorphous description in their mind but cannot articulate it clearly. And never stop to wonder why people won’t accept their opinion and see other people as the issue and not them.

Another aspect is that they might have never stopped to consider exactly what the terms are that they use and just assumed everyone else ‘knew’. Just assumed that there was this agreed societal definition that everyone agreed to and understood, but couldn’t form into coherent and understandable definitions.

The result is when challenged there is this reluctance to accept that maybe it is that they accept misinformation and theory as fact.

She is vague about the process and how you get from A to B, and what she means by ‘women’, so yes, she is confused about that part.

But ignoring that, if you believe that trans women are women in the same way that you believe that anyone with a British passport is British, then it is logical to argue that they should be treated the same.

Lisa Nandy is now a Secretary of State, and I don’t think she has changed her position on prisons, so perhaps that might also in part answer the OP’s query about why this is still such an important question for women.

She's contradicting herself. I don't think she understood it at all.

'I believe fundamentally in people's right to self-ID.
'I believe the Gender Recognition Act strikes the wrong balance in relation to that.
'I think that crimes that are recorded should be recorded as that person wishes, having gone through that process, received support and self-identified

Self ID doesn't require any process or support. It's just saying it. And the acquisition of a GRC does, at least, require something of a process.

She makes no sense.

People are answering. You don't like their answers.

The thing is LivTwist none of these men are women. And women are being used in one way or another to fulfil their requirements.

Right up to and including accessing women and children purely on the basis of their own thoughts and self perception.

It's quite crazy when you think about it.

This is Lisa Nandy responding to a question about putting violent men convicted of rape in women’s prisons:

'I believe fundamentally in people's right to self-ID.
'I believe the Gender Recognition Act strikes the wrong balance in relation to that.
'I think that crimes that are recorded should be recorded as that person wishes, having gone through that process, received support and self-identified.
'I think trans women are women, I think trans men are men, so I think they should be accommodated in a prison of their choosing.'

You might not agree with her, but she is aligning herself with what she understood to be the orthodox ‘progressive’ position on this issue, and from that position it makes sense.

Biological women are still classified as female when they commit awful crimes, so why would you treat trans women differently if you genuinely think trans women are women?

I can care about more than one issue at a time. My opposition to the trans agenda does not mean I no longer oppose other abuses of women.

The reason it's not about genuine transwomen vs fakes is because in terms of spaces, it doesn't matter. And self ID doesn't distinguish anyway.

Access to the space cannot be on the basis of the man's own self image. Whether he's a homosexual transsexual or an autogynephile or just a plain predator isn't relevant.

I understand that many people want to make the distinction because one cohort has a fetish and the other doesn't.

But in terms of access to unconsenting women it's immaterial.

What you don't do is create a loophole in safeguarding which means any man can access vulnerable women.

Because guess who is most likely to do that?

Here I will help.

We need to provide statistics for a group of male people who hold a philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality and their rate of committing sex crimes. We have done this and yet you are the one rejecting this.

You seem to believe one group of male people’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality at all is more genuine than other male people’s philosophical belief that doesn’t reflect material reality at all. How do you want us to access which group’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality at all is more genuine ?

Both group’s philosophical belief about themselves doesn’t reflect material reality at all.

For instance, Is it about the time they have had this belief? Because those male people are all usually very clear they have experienced this philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality at all since childhood. But they are only just expressing it now.

Surely no one wants to say to these male people that unless they tell someone and risk outing themselves when they are not ready, then they are not really women or girls at all?

Well why don't you have a go at answering one then?

What is the difference between a real trans woman and a man who is just pretending to be a trans woman?

No Liv, we don't know what you mean. And we are pressing it because we think you don't know what you mean either, not really.

Because you are a nice person (I assume you are at least, and you come across that way) you have taken it on faith that some men are really somehow women on the inside, and that they probably are gay and probably have surgery, and they need to be treated with care and respect and that means pretending they erally are women.

But now you have to really think about that and explain why you believe it you are starting to realise there is a great big gap in the middle with a sign on top saying "don't look too closely at this because questioning it is transphobic and hateful".

And that is what we want you to realise. That the reason you don't have all the answers is not a failing in you but because there are no answers. And you are not failing, you are learning.

Because we have all been there as well.

I think some people do have an idealised 'transwoman' in their mind - who is 'genuinely' trans. This involves being delicate and emotionally fragile; probably same sex attracted; gets on well with women socially; likes 'girly' things like interior design and getting their hair done etc They've known they're a woman all of their life and have been suffering since childhood. They're harmless.

Is this what you mean by a genuine transwoman'?

Wasn't using it about being raped. I was using about the deliberate misunderstanding of the comment.

You may not want to deal with these questions, but people making policy and law must.

It is clear you have no definition, yet you are now expressing your frustration that we won’t agree with your definition that you cannot even describe.

Yet, you expect us and society to accept that there are ‘genuine’ and ‘non-genuine’ transwomen. Perhaps you should actually consider why you are so frustrated and think about why you can’t provide a legal definition of the category you are insisting we provide statistics for.