More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

That they can’t keep their story straight in their demands and claims is telling of an ideology that is not well-formed.

I see that trans activist on this thread is back to pretending that we can’t tell what sex someone is and trying again to play the dishonest game of conflating the difference what defines sex (which gametes the phenotype is organised to support) and what determines it (a functioning SRY.)

Don't you dare dismiss our experiences of family destruction and the sight of our children damaging their own health in the pursuit of the impossible; the sheer injustice of women's spaces being forcibly turned into mixed spaces; the sheer injustice of women's sporting achievements being stolen from them; the sheer injustice of women being dragged through disciplinary procedures at work for complaining about being required to change their clothing in front of men; the sheer injustice of being cancelled for being truthful.

Moral panic? We are talking about people having suicidal thoughts, losing their loved ones to a cult, losing their livelihoods unjustly, and you dismiss our experiences as "moral panic". How very kind the trans allies and trans-identifying people often turn out to be.

You don't half talk some rot. It gets traction whenever people realise that what transactivists demand has real life negative impacts on women, on relatives of trans people, and sometimes on trans people themselves. Believe me, most of us (perhaps all of us) here have personal experience of the negative impact of trans demands.

That is what has motivated us to educate ourselves on queer theory and how trans people expect society to re-form itself around their wants, not right wing media (who frankly have been very late to recognise the problems).

I have to admit to a wry grin whenever one of them floats the idea that there exists a set of empirical criteria yet to be defined that they are quite quite sure will give them a woman ticket and to hang with the other 99% of men who would sadly find themselves ticketless

I'm sure they think their particular constellation of data points will compute to a lady ticket, but...

The machine would be like Marlo and say "You want it to be one way... but it's the other way."

I think that is because each TRA on here has his own obsessively focused interests at heart and doesn't give a shiny shit what anyone else, including other TRAs, wants.

to be fair most of the TRA I see on here "only has a superficial grasp of what exactly TRAs are demanding, and why women are objecting 🤔"

I notice Eva Wiseman uses the phrase "women who are pregnant" Doesn't she know that according to TRAs that's a transphobic phrase?

It's almost like she only has a superficial grasp of what exactly TRAs are demanding, and why women are objecting 🤔

Dispositions are not 'biological' they are social and psychological. Discrimination means being able to tell one thing apart from another. We all know the difference between male and female, even if we pretend not to, or disagree on why these differences persist.

Referring to people's genuine concerns as 'moral panics' is very dismissive, as is referring to people as 'bigots' and 'phobes' when they don't toe the party line. This is, in large part, what has contributed to the rise in populist parties and movements such as MAGA and Reform.

This is not a one generation issue.....it may well have been picked up first by an older generation of feminists - in the main....but it is now an issue for comment for everyone; and younger generations coming up are no longer really part of the generational trend that launched upon trans rights in the first place. Activists teachers who push this stuff are often given short-shrift by their pupils.
Each new generation is caught up in new trends and movements. 'Trans' is fairly old hat now.....kids are moving on. It's all ADHD now, squeeze balls, and the digital circus. And younger generations seem to be becoming far more conservative and cautious than they might once have been,

All movements start off small at a 'fringe' grassroots level, and then grow as more people become informed and aware. Human beings are social creatures and if they become aware of an obvious social development they will form a view on it and a view of how they may or may not fit into it. The fact is this issue that motivates so many of us here is a now a mainstream issue on which every politician and member of the public must form a view.

Understanding the biology of human sex is not a moral panic.

Not playing along with fetishistic men pretending to be women (even if they believe it themselves) is not a moral panic.

These silly and transparent attempts to pretend that not believing magical thinking comes from a deficiency in the GC side just makes trans activists appear to be thick and dishonest.

I think men are more superficial in their detectition ability when it comes to sex signifiers, as they tend to objectify female/ bodies and body parts and turn them into fetishes. But women generally have far better sex recognition skills that are anything but superficial. We all know the difference between implants and actual breasts, for example, ( whereas i suspect many men cannot tell apart); and we are far better at reading all of the other physical clues as they relate to sex.

There s no such thing as a 'cis' person outside of transgender ideology. We are all either male or female, though as individuals we may choose to dress or present in any number of ways according to our preferences and/or temperament.

It's not a broad category, it's what we call one of the two types of homo sapiens. It's distinguished from the only other type of human by biology, which is immutable, and not subject to change by wishing on stars.

Whatever you want to say - what started out as a committed grassroots movement has become very successful; so succesful, in fact, that it has managed to influence the public debate and achieve some of its goals.
What was hidden has been uncovered and the issue of radical trans ideology and its negative impact upon women and children has been revealed.

Has it occured to you that most people are probably centre right on social and cultural issues. They value boundaries. They don't want destructive radicalism. They don't want open borders. They know the difference between male and female, and they don't like being shamed and shunned because they don't like the totalitarianism of progressive identity politics.

So calling out " right wing" all of the time is nothing but a pointless tribal, virtue signaling exercise.

When TRAs and their various panderers say 'unworkable', what they mean is 'the law says we can't give special men what they want'. It's perfectly workable in practice if you think the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls is more important than a few men being sad.

Appreciate Stonewall et al spent years misrepresenting the law to make men's feelings paramount, which is creating massive cognitive dissonance. But it doesn't change reality and trying to fuck around with the meaning of words everybody understood until five minutes ago isn't going to alter that.

So it sounds to me that you are saying that legislators meant a sex-based definition and the SC correctly found that definition. You presumably also think then that EHRC guidance accurately summarises the law.

I personally don’t think that creates unworkable problems. Those seem to have arisen from erroneous guidance, as well as a move by Stonewall and others to promote self-ID as if it were the law (which both sides of the FWS case agreed was not and had never been).

I agree with you that if you want the law to change then passing legislation is the way to go.

I don’t see opposition to this as being in any way illegitimate or fake as you seem to imply.

They also don’t care about toilet provision.

I think that the absolute last thing Bailey & other gender ideologists want is a clear legal definition of women.

So you suggest rewriting the equality act so that when it says ‘woman’ it means “anyone who thinks they feel like a ‘woman’”? How is that a clear legal definition?

This would not address the basis on which women (biological) are discriminated against (our sex and everything that flows from operating as female in a world designed for the male norm).

And will presumably create conflict with all other legislation that mentions ‘men’ and ‘women’ using the original biological meaning.

She’s a vapid figure moulded by the Guardian like Zoe Williams

I appreciate that intention mattered to protect statutory consistency so there wouldn't be unintended overlap but it created a logistical nightmare in confusion & enforcement. Amending legislation is really what is required here that balances protecting the intention & alleviating the unintended consequences that make the decision unworkable.

Another great example.

Water can indeed be those things. The definition doesn’t rest on appearance.

If vodka is occasionally mistaken for water in everyday settings, does that mean that laws relating to water sometimes mean vodka?

When they were 15 & 16, 2 of my cousins were part of a police project in their area. They made themselves up to look older, visited local shops & tried to buy alcohol. If the staff agreed to sell it to them, the police stepped in.

This is an example of why ‘I am who I say I am’ is bollocks. There can be a big gap between looking something and being it.

Indeed you are.

”typical of” adults is the test. You can’t deny that looking over 18 is typical of adults.

Adult (adj):

(of behaviour, etc.) typical of or suitable for adults:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adult