To find media discussion about trans issues far overstated compared to the actual seriousness of the issue?

[BarmyBrunhilde]

Full disclosure, I happily accept most trans people I've met as their transitioned gender which I know puts me at odds with most people on MN. But as a feminist and a lefty, even if one views trans women as men which I don't, in terms of political priorities it ranks so list on my list of concerns. I assume that applies to most people too (trans people included!).

What someone has listed on their birth certificate has no impact on my life, and surely minimal impact on most women's lives? Imo we should be focusing on cost of living crisis, housing, properly funding women's services including rape crisis services, funding childcare, sorting out the health service and bloody schools! Gender recognition comes way below those for me (even though I'm broadly supportive with some checks in place).

I know gender criticals won't agree with me, and maybe some trans people who feel very strongly, but I do feel there's a silent majority of us who just aren't that fussed?

Bloody hell theres reading police too.

I'm reading it now, I just skimmed it for the term.

Kind? I thought we didnt have to be. Women say no etc.

Because it encourages the idiots who peddle that sort of transphobia.

Banged to rights. Every poster on that side of the debate is perfect, never name calls, never insults, never puts a foot wrong. Well done you.

😴

But calling people stupid and just making blanket statements doesnt help.

I think people who believe men can literally become woman, are stupid. The same people who spout 'sex assigned at birth'.

Stupid.

So women whose lives have been devastated by their husbands coming out as AGP are transphobic idiots?

Thats a risk for everyone. Men and women alike, not just to trans.

No, people who drag it into a debate about trans people with the inference that it is something to consider for all trans people are.

I'm sorry, I dont know what agp means.

Are you trying to get me deleted Seriously though, it's short for the sexual fetish you were talking about. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17951885/

Just in case others haven't realised.
This persistent me-railer has had all these discussions before and consistently me-rails until threads are filled up.
They were here months ago under another username and they did it all over the feminism boards.
It's good for the lurkers to see the links and lack of arguments but beware of the tactics.

Well you are the one calling people worried about primary school kids being stalked by men in school uniforms 'nonsense' and women whose lives have been crushed 'transphobic' and 'idiots'.

Today in Scotland they are calling for mine, and many other women who don't believe that men can become women to be beheaded. Supported by the SNP.

My stance is that the 2004 legislation was a mistake. We (Scotland or the rest of the UK) shouldn’t be doubling down on that mistake by making it easier to get a GRC.

Why does a natal male need to be treated for female-specific medical problems (and vice versa)? Why does a natal female need to use the male toilets (and vice versa)?

Why does a natal male’s feelz need to be accommodated, once he’s got his £5 / 6 month waiting time GRC, such that he cannot then be barred from any space previously segregated by sex?

Why does he then get to intimately search women (if he’s in the police)? Why does he get to override the wishes of women to provide them with intimate medical care? Why does he get housed with vulnerable female prisoners (who are sanctioned if they complain) - showering in the same blocks as them, being searched by female guards (even if against their will, on threat of dismissal).

Why does a male with a GRC get to insist on intimate searches from female police officers? Get to insist on changing in female spaces, or joining rape counselling sessions for women?

The HoC / Blair’s government of the day, fucked up (deliberately or otherwise) when passing the original legislation. Time to repeal it and time to make clear that sex, for the purposes of searches, intimate care, the prison estate, recording crime stats, rape counselling etc etc etc is about natal sex.

And if someone wants to pretend they’ve magically changed ‘gender’ then we’ll nod along with them and pretend they pass, but we should not have allowed them to fuck up all the safeguarding barriers that were leaky enough before the gender nonsense advanced as far as it has.

Neither of those things happened

Thanks for the heads-up @SantaCarlaCalifornia Who'd have thought that there are gameplayers here, eh? Happy to share truth and model patience until it runs out and I need a cuppa.

For the lurkers. Not an exhaustive list and of course, there's the other side of the coin to look at. I'm not going to link to any of them, as I'm a women's rights campaigner and my priority will always be females - women and girls.

I'm only here for the lurkers, which there are often many of.

Thanks for another example for those who try and claim posters dont try and discredit anyone who doesnt fit the narrative to preserve the echo chamber as posters keep trying to do.

Anything constructive to add?

So what is the answer?

Absolutely not , you're nice!

Have now looked it up. I'm not sure it should be discussed in general discussion in with trans issues though.

Anything constructive to add?

Fucking hell, have you?!

Not to insult people?

I'm not the one making things up about other posters Vino.

I've not insulted anyone. I was asking what the answer is to single sex spaces. And women not wanting to share theirs with people who are not women

Precisely.

Me-railers aside, this is something women need to know, to understand and appreciate the implications not only for themselves but for any trans family and friends.

"half a brain".

I agree with single sex spaces. I just dont think we get there by using some of the labels that have been.

”No. Maybe you're harassing both posters or mixed up your posters, that would explain why you think I somewhere cared about what other sites do in their discussions.”

”My interest in your posts stopped when you minimised and mocked my concerns. Why you're still going on as ic you are the CEO of mumsnet (who actually I think do a great job, its tbe posters who are the issue) I have no idea.”

Now I am ‘harassing’ you and others. And I where have I ‘mocked’ your concern. And I am somehow acting as if I am the CEO of Mumsnet?

All in light of you admonishing me with a ‘behave’ on a post that I don’t recall aiming at you at all but you chose to engage with?

Thank you for the apology. I am perplexed by your initial response though it really doesn’t seem proportionate.