"Trans people have always been here!"

I think that the transgender movement has been used as an instrument - there are others - to give men the means to attack women, sometimes literally, as in literally, as they have done for centuries, but this time under the guise of being liberal and progressive supporters of transgenderism.

I agree that it isnt just the trans identifying man thats the problem, its the fact that it supported.

Even non progressive will say that they dont believe it, but Clive is a mate and should go into the womens changing rooms.

Re: WI

If there were truly a group of men who were tolerated as honorary women, it says a lot about how women are conditioned to tolerate a lot from men.

What was going through the mind of the first man to put on his wifes/mothers/sisters dress and ask nicely to join in and promise he'll sit quietly at the back? Every woman in the room thought that was normal?

I think it was probably such a bizarre request that the women didnt know what to say, and waited from someone else to say and do something. And then no-one wanted to be the one who went against the group.

Then it became 'we'll ask him to leave when he does something wrong'. As he gets more involved the 'something wrong' standard is erroded, and suddenly he's leading talks about his journey to womanhood, having a leadership role and on the cover of WI magazines.

Did that outcome cross his mind when he popped on the dress and asked nicely to join?

I think so, every man who puts on womens clothes and then says hes not imposing, just want to sit at the back, has the aim about being the ultimate 'woman' and control every women. The 'journey' there is the thrill.

I dont believe trans is real, but i think lots of men want to control women and will use any means possible. Thats why trans is an umbrella term - men are using gender in a variety of ways to control and humiliate women.

Previously women didn't want to believe that of men they knew, couldnt express it, dont want to face the humiliation of the redefining of woman into an outfit, so pretended its deeper than cross dressing and he's not intending to harm them.

Absolutely. We've gone from "I'm really much happier if you treat me as a woman and I would appreciate it greatly if you would" to "I AM a woman, because I say so, and I demand that not only do you treat me as such, but you recognise its much harder to be a woman like me than a lucky woman like you, so my needs will trump yours".

The mechanisms by which unfounded theories and ideas - the Dutch tulip mania in the 17th century, the South Sea bubble in the 18th - take hold only become clear in retrospect.

Future social scientists will look at the mid-2020s and will find reasons why an idea which is demonstrably at odds with scientific fact - that some people are born in the wrong body, and that they can change sex - gained so much traction in certain societies that it exerted disproportionate influence over education, law, media, religion, medicine, etc.

Taking the UK as an example, it is difficult to explain rationally how a tiny percentage of the population - approx 250,000 people in a population of approx 69 million - could successfully make demands like obliging people to misuse language, to lose their single sex spaces, and demand special toilet facilities everywhere - for 0.03% of the population!

It's too soon to explain how the fact that some people [myself and many other posters on here included] have difficulty with the gender stereotypes that coincide with their biological sex has been turned into a noisy, sometimes violent movement for 'trans rights', which turn out not to be rights at all - because trans people have the same human rights as everyone else - but extra privileges, disproportionate to their number.

The internet and social media will probably be found to have played an important role.

I suggest that the anti-women nature of transgenderism - it co-opts women's identity by making 'womanness' something that anyone can have regardless of their sex, and thereby appropriates women's rights as well as identity - gave it extra fuel to power through societies, as a backlash to the achievements of the women's movement. Women were never going to be put back in the boxes we had escaped from, so transgenderism had a role in undermining - and sometimes ridiculing, as in drag - women as a distinct social group.

If the group 'woman' in fact contains anybody, man or woman, what is the meaning of women's rights, women only spaces, etc? They have no meaning.

I think that the transgender movement has been used as an instrument - there are others - to give men the means to attack women, sometimes literally, as in literally, as they have done for centuries, but this time under the guise of being liberal and progressive supporters of transgenderism.

The rocket-fuel that propelled such a tiny percentage of the population into such an inexplicable position of power and influence - while claiming to be 'the most marginalised'! - is running out, as evidenced by legal victories and shifts in public opinion.

To transpeople- their rights and no more.
To women - our rights and no less.

The only vaguely ‘transgender/transsexual’ people in historical record are the Hijra in South Asia. Some, but not all, have their male genitalia removed, and then dress and ‘live’ in a traditionally female style. There’s also the ‘lady boys’ from Cambodia/Thailand. The big difference between these groups and current TiMs is they live in third spaces, in their own communities and don’t demand to share female spaces.

This sounds suspiciously like gender stereotypes.
Which many groups for many years have tried to battle against.

But what remains strange about this is that the transgender group (from my under standing of what you are posting) is that they are trying to pull away from one set of stereotypes (saying that they are wrong/don't fit) but are wholly buying into and forcing another set of stereotypes on everybody.

@PriOn1 I don't want to quote you because it's a bit long, but that was an excellent balanced post and I agree with every word.

If you are relying on the "Integrity Project" for your opinions on the Cass review you may, in the interest of acknowledging bias, consider the thorough breakdown given to it by Jesse Singal.

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading

The report you cite, like most research in the area, is trash.

To what extent did transgenderism drive the feminist movement ?

breathe please

as in - to what extent was it women who rejected the gender norms , who didn’t see how they were materially (mentally) different to men that drove feminism ?

because in 1900 I would say that feminism was about not conforming to your gender and that means a rejection of ( your given ) gender and that is basically the definition of transgender ?

they happily came up with a solution that didn’t involve sterilisation and surgery for none conforming girls

they could manage to not conflate sex and gender

so yes transgender always existed but it’s the transwomen movement that has turned it from a fight for gender freedom - freedom of gender expression ( those women wearing trousers) and freedom from gender restrictions ( like voting because women’s brains are too dumb ) into an assault on women’s rights

?

The deeply frustrating thing is that there is a grain of truth in arguments such as that made by the WI, that men who were desperate to be women (or at least to be accepted into women’s spaces) have, in tiny numbers, been allowed access for some time.

This removing them now feels unpleasant. The problem being, of course, that it’s no longer accepted that those men approach carefully and quietly ask for access, with full understanding that they might be refused. That quiet asking has been replaced (in some cases) with insistent demands.

So while some WI units might have allowed a tiny number of men in, as a favour (and presumably those men would be on their best behaviour) this has opened them up to having to allow any man in. The attendance of the modern day transvestite in his inappropriately short skirt, obviously for kicks, inevitably splits the room.

There will still be women who welcome him in as a kind of pampered pet, while others are so unsettled they will quietly leave. Those who object will be labelled as bigots by the first group of women and the equilibrium of a previously accepting space for almost all women (presumably there may be a tiny, unrecognized number who left when the first, well-behaved men were admitted) will have changed entirely.

That this is not recognized by well-meaning women is one of my major frustrations. My (female) minister, a good woman, still sees women who object as unreasonable bigots.

Until you’ve been on the receiving end of an out and out narcissist who enjoys splitting up close knit communities in that way (that’s definitely the remit of some modern transactivists) it’s probably hard to imagine, but it’s incredibly frustrating to be labelled a bigot and dismissed for seeing something others have missed. That transactivism has changed and will continue to change if left unchecked is not the fault of women.

Yes, that's my point... someone with 'an indefinable feeling' that doesn't amount to a strong desire to be the opposite sex wouldn't necessarily have been considered as "trans" 50 years ago.

Did you not see the two distinct groups in my post?
Transgender and Transsexual?

I’m sure theyhave always been here, the major differences though are, prior to the last , what 30 years maybe, the option of having hormone treatment/ surgery to change sex didn’t exist and any man who went into a woman only space dressed as a woman and saying they identified as female,probably didn’t have a very good time.

Whatever the case, it is based entirely on indefinable 'essences' and feelings. Of course sometimes it is necessary to work out how one feels about something, certainly if it is a persistent feeling, but feelings are not reality as such, they are the individual's way of navigating the world of relationships and they come and go, magnify and recede.

I believe its highly likely there have always been people of both sexes who have hated being the sex they are and have had a very strong desire to be the opposite sex, for a variety of reasons, not all sexual, often to do with disliking the societal expectations for their sex and imagining it would be better to be the opposite sex.
I believe that for a long time, those who feel this strongly enough have considered themselves 'born in the wrong body', meaning they would have been so much happier, they believe, if born the opposite sex. Society has tolerated this for a long time to some degree or another.
What is new I think it the idea that some people actually 'are' the opposite sex, because of ...reasons. Reasons relating to a gendered soul, a developmental difference, that sex isn't the way we understand it to be etc.
So 'transgender' stops being an accommodation of people who want to live as their idea of the opposite sex, and becomes a forced recognition that sex is something entirely different from what we understand, and that only the individual concerned can tell us their sex, and when they do, that must be unconditionally accepted. Or, that sex matters less than 'gender' and people's self declared gender overrides the rights of sex. This turns what was once a tolerance that some men don't like being men so want to be treated socially as women, into something much more problematic.

And the important part is that it not relevant to moving those male prisoners into the female prison. If they are more likely to be vulnerable to attack, then they should be protected in a section for male vulnerable prisoners.

The poster can produce as much evidence as they like but none of it justifies moving those male people
into female prisons. If anything, it shows there is great need for better care for all vulnerable male prisoners.

So have pigeons, I believe. And cockroaches, and bees. And grass has been around for a very long time indeed. So what?

I question today's "transgender" and also the old "knowledge" that says there are "transexuals" and "transvestites".
In my life experience there are only men who are sexually aroused by pretending to be a woman. Some take it further than others.

It is highly relevant as there are different factors such as sex work being normalised in other countries, and the fact that we live in the UK, where there is no significant data surrounding trans people being subject to assault or rape here, especially for being Trans.

Also the link you have provided doesn't work.

I also don't believe it is true.

There is no evidence for gender identity, the foundational tenet of the ideology. Without this, there is no such thing as someone whose gender identity and sex misalign.

I think that gender dysphoria lacks evidence for it being a condition distinct from other body integrity disorders/ anxiety disorder, and that while the pain is real the cause is misattributed to a fictitious gender-soul and sexist stereotypes. The cause of the pain is just a hypothesis of small number of psychiatrists and "sexologists", a branch of medicine no stranger to controversy, scandal and fad ideas and which is the epicentre of the scientific "reproducibility crisis".

By looking for a cure in the supernatural they are denying their patients proper care. And they are lying to society.

The objections to the Cass Review are all seemingly based on the view that being trans is innate, therefore only research that supports this is valid and all other research must be flawed.

The Cass Review addressed quite a different question which was whether there was good evidence that the standard medical interventions improved wellbeing among gender questioning patients and concluded that there wasn't.

What's more important? Ideology or happiness? That's why the 'experts' (who now appear to have been doing their thing with a distinct lack of trousers) hate the Cass Review.

There is no such thing as a female man or a male woman. The terms you are searching for, I suspect are 'masculine' and' feminine'.

I've asked some trans people whether this is what they mean. They've either ignored the question or said "no it's more complicated than that".

seeth is one of the few people who has tried to actually communicate their feelings and interpretation of their gender identity!

I would say gender is the set of expectations and assumptions placed on you due to your (perceived) sex.

The definition of trans refers to gender identity, which is indefinable really (or relies on some meaning of other wirds such as man/woman, which are never set out). I don't know how to tell whether I have one or what it might be.

But that is what being trans requires, apparently.

Its a global consensus amongst expert medical practitioners/organisations in the field.

The problem is the 'field' is made up entirely of 'trans' IDing people, who have created the 'field' in order to push their own point of view and political agenda, the reports they produce are not credible in any medical or scientific way.

Gender, yes. But gender identity is a nebulous feeling of "feeling like a man/woman/both/neither/other". Not that anyone can ever explain what "feeling like a woman" means, yet it's paramount and should totally overrule sex.