NHS bans transwomen from female space

This.

What bullshit. Transwomen ARE the patriarchy. It’s just another manifestation of it that allows males to speak over and for females once more.

TW are brown nosing the patriarchy

I'm certainly not sure where 'cissification' fits into all this.

As I said to @totino unless she has evidence that “trans women” men pose less of a risk to women in terms of sexual assault and harassment than other men, she doesn’t have a single leg to stand on and no one needs to take her fascinating thoughts on why women shouldn’t have female only spaces particularly seriously, any more than any of the other virtue signalling on social media.

trans women and patriarchy mutually reject each other.

What does this even mean? (Rhetorical question)

A trans woman can be violent, she can be a sexual predator, (and so can women, in general) but she will not be in those circles because trans women and patriarchy mutually reject each other.

I think many of us are familiar with men who claim to reject the patriarchy...

'biology isn't destiny' is such an unapologetically stupid phrase that I wonder whether you really mean it.

Where to start?

I could discuss the impact of all sorts of medical conditions, but I will stick to sex.

Do you think women can knit their own contraceptives from grass? Turn their bodies off and on again if they don't want to be pregnant? Do you think doctors give the same fertility treatment to men and women just in case? If rights to maternity pay ended tomorrow, do you think this might have a particular impact on a particular group of people? There has been a lot of discussion about about the impact of menopause, but I gather that you think the biggest mystery is who might be affected. Do you think female runners are just lazy? That a woman could break the 100m record if she just trained harder?

Women rely on a whole framework of rights that men don't need. This doesn't place them on some kind of hierarchy. It just means that they need rights that are specific to their sex. My ability to receive an education and earn money has depended on my ability to control my fertility. This is a relatively recent right in the history of human existence. It is a sex based right. If I were a man I could just use my feet to run away from an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't want anyone to feel afraid, but a women's space that is only for some women (cis) is not a proper women's space to me.

I agree that it would be odd to restrict a space to women who identify as 'cis'. They could all have a lovely time discussing how much they identify with their oppression. However, nobody except you is suggesting this.

I find it difficult to believe that you are trying to defend trans rights in good faith, because your arguments are just so bad. I'm really not sure what you are trying to say with your aftershave story, but I don't think that even the GLP will be using it.

Yes, men commit the most violence. That is why we have spaces for women away from men, for their safety and dignity.

As ‘transwomen’ ARE men under any scientific, objective, verifiable criteria what would be the justification for allowing them into women’s spaces when we keep other men out?

Shocked face.

"Trans racial" is a weird concept anyway because the boxes are even more arbitrary than sex/gender.

There’s nothing arbitrary about sex.

To do this @totino would need a definition of transwoman.

@totino can you explain why someone identifying as a TW is any less likely to do those things ?

There is a difference between saying “the majority of violent and sexual offenders are male” and saying “males are inherently more violent and sexual”. Even more so when you are arguing the latter from a purely biological standpoint, which would ignore socialisation and other components of ‘nurture’.

I think you misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting Professor Phoenix’s evidence. It is here if you want to examine it more closely. She is talking about ‘social norms’, which is what you would expect from a social scientist.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Expert-witness-report-by-Prof-Jo-Phoenix.pdf

Of course men commit the most violence. It's not biological essentialism because I don't think it's biological. You don't have to hit someone because they are smaller. You don't have to penetrate someone because you have dick. You don't have to be violent to others because testosterone makes you angry. These are choices that are being made.

A trans woman can be violent, she can be a sexual predator, (and so can women, in general) but she will not be in those circles because trans women and patriarchy mutually reject each other.

Bio-essentialism would be saying “you are a man therefore you are more sexual than a woman”. Realism would be saying “men are statistically more likely to commit sexual crimes”. Those are two very different statements. One is completely misguided, the other is factually correct. I’ve never seen the first represented on this board and frequently seen the second.

You are wrong

You don’t like the idea so you will ignore the facts.
however it is caused men are more violent and sexually violent than women

I don’t believe modest and compassionate is at all relevant. And I hate stereotypes being given unnecessarily. And indeed you need to think on that a little more. The stereotypes are encouraged onto children - and that’s why being a hoodie type girl can be difficult. It doesn’t mean you are less of a girl. It means stupid people have come up with stupid rules about what it means to be female. And you are actually encouraging that by refusing to respect the fundamental biological differences.

which are inportant cause a man bleeding down below is clearly a problem not a period. Because a heart attack presents differently. And because - nature or nurture- men are more violent than women. And until men fix that we should be allowed to have safe spaces

People also coped with depression, with rotting teeth, unavailable abortions, and poor vision before glasses, but as soon as all that was available they used it.

The idea that there's simply no treatment is very different from there being a treatment, but you can't have it for stupid reasons. No outcome is perfect, but if any other treatment had regret rates as stunningly low, nobody would say a peep.

I mean, these are daunting and sometimes dangerous interventions, but so are many surgeries. I don't think people should be denied treatment because strangers think they're too scary.

When males stastically commit 99% of violent and sexual crimes, and people say 'males commit more violent and sexual crimes', you think that is 'bio-essentialism? And not 'saying true things evidenced by statistics'?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but saying males are naturally more sexual and violent and women are naturally more modest and compassionate is bio-essentialism to me, for example, and I've seen this sentiment expressed by GC people. I remember Professor Phoenix in I think the Darlington tribunal speak about women's inclination toward modesty or something, and then I went to check my calendar what year it is. I hate flirting and I mostly wear hoodies and sweatpants but the "inherence" of it all strikes me as wrong. I'm also very Northern European so the idea of undressing and nudity being obscene and automatically sexual is a little daft in the first place.

The idea of a "real woman" being tied to biological function and features is a little thin to me, so the FWS ruling makes a distinction that I find meaningless, personally.

I love the way you talk about how transgender has been around for a very long time

and totally ignore the life outcomes of all those who came before the current times

the outcomes where they managed to live happy and fulfilled lives without all the harmful treament and surgery

the outcomes where they managed to help society as a whole reduce the gender stereotyping rather than trying to get society to reinforce such stereotypes

you are actually making it harder for people with gender dysmorphia to live unharmed and to improve society. You are feeding their mental problems - and yes I do think they are mental health problems at least in my case. Very real at the time. Very clearly delusional now

What do you think bioessentialism means and how do you think it relates to the FWS ruling?

I think biology isn't destiny, so yes we need to urgently get away from that thinking. I don't want a gamete-based social order, but since FWS won I guess you'll all get to test drive this for a while. I have my thoughts about how it'll go. (I live in a country with self declaration.)

I had a friend who unfortunately was molested as a child. As a result, she had an extremely bad traumatic reaction to a very common after shave. Of course, everyone who knew would make the effort to keep it away from her but in public, it couldn't always be avoided and it was really tough for her. But there is no way to ban something from wider society because of trauma. I don't want anyone to feel afraid, but a women's space that is only for some women (cis) is not a proper women's space to me.

Rachel Dolezal is interesting, because I'm mixed race and actually do think race and ethnicity are also very opaque and arbitrary. But I think the immediate difference is that she was one person and trans people are a recognizable minority of people with identifiable goals and needs which has been known about for at least 100 years but probably longer. In the same vein there is no "community" for people who are dysphoric about having legs and want them removed because while it happens, it's less an example of regular human variety. Whereas I think trans people are uncommon but not abnormal.

"Trans racial" is a weird concept anyway because the boxes are even more arbitrary than sex/gender. Light-skinned black people pass as white. One single brown actor on a variety show will play everything from muslims to latinos to Jesus. I'm half Chinese and I had a kid in my class who was from Thailand and everyone would always ask us if we were twins so we eventually started saying yes. I'd say the Dolezal case was largely about how white and black culture intersect in the US.

It was your use of 'biological essentialism' that I was criticising. You brought up rape.

I was making a wider point that sex has practical consequences, (possibility of pregnancy obviously being a key part of this, but the list is long and you could also talk about dealing with periods, and miscarriage) and that is why women need sex based rights.

I'm actually quite cautious about sex based segregation, and don't think it should be done for spurious reasons.

If you are arguing that a space should be used by all women and an indefinable group of men, then I think your reason is spurious and almost certainly sexist.