"I don't need you to believe I'm a woman"...but I still get whatever I want

I'm being childish I know, amongst all of you having a proper conversation, but this thread just brought Monty Python vibes. "The group resolves the logical impasse by agreeing to fight for Stan's symbolic "right to have babies," even if the physical reality is impossible."

"I'm not a woman but I want to have the right to be recognised as one" 🙄

Singal's commentary about the article is infuriating and basically that, about a decade ago, he had a chat with another bloke about whether or not this bloke (and blokes like him) should be allowed to use women's single-sex provisions. And they both decided they were cool with it happening cos a) they both got on well and b) blokes are human too 🙄:

https://nitter.net/jessesingal/status/2087158172259643484#m

1/ This column from Cassie Pritchard is excellent. I guess it makes sense I'd think so because I am increasingly one of those boring liberals and Cassie is (I think uncharacteristically) endorsing boring liberal positions, but one quick point

2/ Before I got sucked into the youth gender medicine vortex, I got to interview Laura Jane Grace, lead singer of a band that has had a tremendous influence on me, Against Me! She had transitioned and was campaigning against North Carolina's bathroom bill.

3/ I was a fanboy going in but I found LJG to be a lovely and wise person. It was difficult to see how anyone could hear her story and want to police where she went to the bathroom. I don't remember the fight as having centered on whether people like her were really women.

4/ I have no doubt that some activists wanted to frame it that way, and they clearly won at the level of the big orgs. How did that work out? I think the boring argument of "Look at this group of people, hear their stories, treat them as human" was far more effective.

The difference being it wasn't the Government who determined polio was a threat but the medical profession who then advised them on this. Whilst governments are responsible for the medical profession determining safety like they did with the systemic review of puberty blockers its beyond their expertise to adjudicate safety themselves not to mention the vulnerability to bias. I don't think people realise how dangerous a precedent it is to now demand the government not follow the Cass expert recommendations based on inexpert political pressure. Its no different from the government ignoring vaccine or climate change expert advice because its not popular.

We are living in very dangerous times where amateur popular opinion is considered a viable replacement for expertise.

If you are male, you have a significantly higher level of strength than a female and are statistically more likely to assault a female than another female.

Your gender has nothing to do with it, your sex has everything to do with it. Therefore, women will judge you on your sex because that is the thing that is threatening to women, especially when they are in a room alone and taking off their clothes.

You think so? I think it is more about recognising that while some aspects of medical care are certainly down to personal choice and decision where adults are concerned, it is also important to recognise that there are situations when governments have to assert authority , for example to protect wider communities in the event of particular threats ( I am old enough to remember the polio outbreaks in the fifties) or, and this is pertinent, to protect those who do not have the capacity through age, immaturity or impairment, either to make appropriate decisions for themselves, or when they are being coerced into or denied appropriate care. This could involve decisions being made not on the grounds of health but for other reasons be that ideology, religion, ignorance or intransigence.

it's obviously very much written through a US lens and doesn't always translate well to those of us in the UK.

The US constitution was written under a pro liberty lens so the principles of freedom are very much ingrained in the American psyche but that doesn't mean there aren't implications on other countries who lack constitutional authority. In fact they are more vulnerable to attacks on their liberties as a result of not having constitutional protections by popular opinion.

Sorry what’s the role of the police state exactly in relation to gender / sex / trans?

Well bodily scrutiny for the purposes of public toilets isn't exactly exclusive to trans people. Its women as well.

NB in the UK at least I’d say healthcare is inescapably politicised because of the NHS. Politicians make decisions on budgets and required standards, it’s unavoidable at the macro level.

Budgets isn't the same as medical decisions which should be based on professional medical expertise not popular opinion.

While I can't say I agree with the general direction of the article, I did actually find it interesting to read. As other posters have already pointed out, it's obviously very much written through a US lens and doesn't always translate well to those of us in the UK.

I thought it was interesting to hear a perspective from the other side of the fence decrying the mindless mantras and the rabid insistence from some quarters about no debate etc.

Maybe we'll see more of this in future and things will calm down a bit... Who knows?

Sorry what’s the role of the police state exactly in relation to gender / sex / trans?

NB in the UK at least I’d say healthcare is inescapably politicised because of the NHS. Politicians make decisions on budgets and required standards, it’s unavoidable at the macro level.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing btw, but the idea that healthcare is an ideological blank slate / free-for-all isn’t really correct.

I demand my right to steal from you and I decry that my right to be free to do so is illegitimately curtailed by the police state’s laws against theft. Liberty or death!

The point you are missing is the principle of liberty being undermined by enforcing a police state & politicisation of medical care. While that might suit some for an individual issue, it sets a precedent for others that might not suit like for example reproductive care restrictions ….should the prevailing political ruling party demand it.

Principles are what is ultimately on the line here so its a short sighted approach to not recognise that.

That's all lovely that TRAs have worked out that shouting TWAW isn't going to cut the mustard. Now they just need to work on respecting our laws and not forcing their way into single sex protected spaces.

This shows a wilfully profound misunderstanding of the piece. The author simply doesn't believe there's any utility in attempting to convince/persuade/explain gender not sex….& she's right because by virtue of being gender critical means this is an impossible task. At the heart of sex realism is the belief that gender is a social construct …a 'stereotype' not a biological inclination & as such carries no weight as a meaningful identity that deserves rights so its more pragmatic to approach this issue as done for religion.

According to the article “ individual freedom and tolerance” means that we shouldn’t allow mean minded shallow wrongthinking governments to legislate against right thinking parents who wish to give their very young children “gender affirming care”. And that in addition we should allow trans identifying boys ( its always boys,we know that) to take part in sporting events against young women, because again it is their individual freedom to do so - the boys freedom to be clear, the girls seem not to be considered to have any right to freedom of choice in this issue.

I am not sure just whose tolerance is being challenged in the sports situation, I suspect it is the girls and their parents who have again missed out on their right to make choices.

Unfortunately I think I dropped my tolerance gene down the toilet and flushed. Oops.

We're moving into the revelation stage of trans activism I see. "It's one big fake con, we've never believed we can change sex, we just want to do whatever the hell we damn well please. We don't give a shit about boundaries and safeguarding. We are men and we go where we want." #operationletthemspeak at It's finest.

Go for it. We're popcorn ready 🍿

Patience. (Although the law about workplaces is now clear)

There's no case law yet to determine whether this is true. Ultimately this claim needs to be tested in court specifically applied to public toilets to find out.

Rights are absolute or can be qualified. But you don’t gain rights you don’t otherwise have by “need”. There’s no way to construct a “right” for a man to use a woman’s toilet no matter how much he “needs” to.

i don’t have the “right” to steal your money even if as a poor person it would be proportional for me to do so.

But where the argument falls flat is his insistence that even though he's not really a woman, and no one has to believe it, he STILL is entitled to women's rights.

The reason why you think it falls flat is because rights are dependent on proportionality & not necessarily sex. It's who out of those competing for rights is going to suffer the greater of harms/disadvantages that ultimately matters & that rests on principles.

Brilliant article btw so thanks for the link.

I lost the will to live about half way through this nonsensical diatribe but my impression is that his ideas will please absolutely no one. Rabid TRAs are not going to concede that transwomen are not actually women
And women are still not going to accept that "specially identifed men" should have women's rights
however much word salad he throws at us

And that is the nub of why we are in this mess. There was no gay marriage and some gay men wanted to be married so one of them transitioned. They were allowed to marry before the legalisation of gay marriage.

Just think, if we had allowed gay marriage in the 1970s when they passed the act that decriminalised gay sex, we might not be in this position.

I’m willing to be part of a coalition where many people do not believe the things I believe about transsexuality and gender. I’m not thrilled about it, and it’s often dispiriting.

Great. so am I. I’m willing to exist with billions of people who do not believe the things I believe about a great many things. It is indeed depressing and dispiriting.

But I am willing to tolerate those beliefs, even when they’re uncomfortable or painful, for the sake of obtaining our freedoms and material security.

No. You (and I) have to tolerate those beliefs not as some quid pro-quo, but just because. If your tolerance of my beliefs is in return for some thing you consider to be freedom and without which your tolerance dries up, then it’s not tolerance in the first place.

Well what can I say, men gonna men! Unfortunately for him he's breaking the law if he accesses women's spaces and should probably be put on some kind of register if he insists on doing so or even face charges. I won't say "if he gets caught" because there is no chance of passing for that dude.

It's insane and I am sick of the double standards too.

A gay couple is not allowed to marry in church in England or Wales. Only the church of Scotland permit it.

A colleague now considers himself straight as his male partner has transitioned to female. Im of the view they remain a gay couple of 2 men.
They are considered a heterosexual couple and are getting married in church next year in England. Its a joke so gay people are discriminated against but if you say youre the opposite sex you get a church wedding