How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

[needatalk]

I've been reading various discussions and articles on this topic for some time and the conclusion that keeps popping up in my mind is the worry that my female rights will be as much eroded as LGBT rights in law.

I've seen a push in America especially Florida from activists and lawmakers, combining female and LGBT rights in the same grouping. In the UK, politicians are taking American policies. They are calling for diversity and equality to be dismantled in law. It's like time is going backwards in just on LGBT rights but on female sex based rights. Where less rights will exist for us females in the future to do subjects such as STEM or be Astronaut because of the stereotyping happening from suppose feminists who's concepts are the old typical stay at home leave the male to do the dangerous or go to work mentally.

My daughter is 8 years old and and I worry for her, to not able to have the right to do express herself as bisexual or lesbian because of erosion of LGBT rights. We all know homosexuality a long time ago was illegal and that can happen again for all LGBT rights. I worry that my daughter who loves space won't able to follow Rosemary Coogan become an astronaut which is something she dreams of because in the future people will say the radiation of space is too dangerous for females as they will get deformities in that area to prevent them for having babies or healthy babies. Science has disprove this but people are dismissing science now.

As much as I care and support about sex based rights, I can't forget the thought in my mind that my and my daughter's female rights are in as much danger of being taken away not by activists but by lawmakers who enforce sex based past stereotyping and us females lose equality which has been hard to fight for in the first place.

I'm so worried for the future for us females.

The science is clear. There is no argument for trans people who were registered male at birth to compete in women's sporting categories other than "because they want to".

Right so my point that many prominent GC campaigners have associations that aren't in the best interest for women's rights as I said then? You don't agree that they should oppose that?

Abusive men that are your friends are also abusive men, sorry. When we stay their friends and buy their yachts after women have accused them of abuse, that's support. We don't know why she supported him. We don't know why she sent Marilyn Manon a bunch of flowers after he was publicly accused of SA either. It's her business but again I don't think she should be held as some sort of champion for women's rights if she believes women until they accuse a famous friend.

The science is not clear. Perhaps if you leave your echo chamber you could listen to some intelligent scientists debate the possibilities. If a transman wanted to compete against other men, we can establish a fair way to do that without telling them they can't compete or that they have to compete against women and the arguments that would come from that and if they would need to alter their medication. We have expanded sports so much in their history, we have invented numerous categories to establish fairer yet still interesting competition. I think saying we can't do the same with trans people is lazy. We need more categories. We can't just come up against an issue and say "nah we're sorting that".

Why have you suddenly pivoted to talking about "trans men" when "trans women" are the problem?

If a transman wanted to compete against other men, we can establish a fair way to do that without telling them they can't compete or that they have to compete against women

What if a transabled person wanted to compete against disabled athletes? Would you also be trying to 'establish a fair way to do that'? Or would you tell them to give their head a wobble and compete in their appropriate category like everybody else?

Transmen can compete against men, again most male categories are open, this is how women can play in them. Some transmen may require a certification for their medication.

But they can compete.

Because you always focus on trans women. It's boring and it's lazy. Transmen exist too and they're of the biological sex you care about but you don't focus on them much which is odd. And they're apparently doing what you are arguing against which is biological women competing against biological males which is apparently totally unfair regardless and could never be categorised to be fair. So Danny Baker should have to fight women in this sex based sport ideal? I think it's a lazy argument that biological sex is all that matters for competing in sport and it would imply Danny has no chance competing against biological males. I think it's interesting to listen to his comments as he doesn't blindly support people competing in categories they wish to and he actually has some interesting advice regarding the categorisation and has opposed some trans women competing in women's categories.

@Lampy123678 Right so my point that many prominent GC campaigners have associations that aren't in the best interest for women's rights as I said then? You don't agree that they should oppose that?

Accusations aren't the same as associations.
We do see GC campaigners deny, debunk and address various accusations, but equally they shouldn't have to dignify every batshit claim made about them with z response.

I didn't say they couldn't. I'm saying if we go down the route of insisting on solely sex based categories with no other creative solutions, how could they continue to compete against men?

This is going in circles. I think when someone quotes you or publicly supports you, you should oppose support from them because you care about the danger that person represents to women's rights. Some people don't do that because they want the support of those people's followers.
They don't have to do anything and can just go about their business but they shouldn't profess to champion women's rights and certainly they shouldn't be looked up to by feminists.

Because its not a sex based category its an open category.

Serena Williams is an exceptional tennis player, she has rewritten how women's tennis is played. Yet even she admits that she wouldn't rank in the top 200 male players.

Yet a mediocre male swimmer ranked 462 became the number 1 NCAA swimmer beating Olympic ranked female swimmers.

How can you possibly think that is fair?

The weather was perfect today and me and my daughter went on the bus to visit a local village. We spent looking around the village and walking around the lake. We were both hungry and visited a lovely restaurant. During our dessert, my daughter saw a spider and jumped knocking everything off and covering herself with chocolate ice cream, milkshakes all over her white shorts and yellow t shirt. Anyway she was so upset and fortunately the restaurant staff helped me clean and deal with the situation.

I couldn’t take her home on a bus in a mess and I took in the ladies and got her cleaned up the best I could by getting her to remove her clothes and I gave them a wash in the sink and dried them on the dryer machine. Wipe her legs down with wipes. Took her home afterwards.

The reason I wrote this is because without sex based toilets I couldn’t have cleaned up my daughter in a safe space. That’s the all point of sex based toilets to help us women to feel safe.

And I still don't know who or what you mean by this. Is it Helen Joyce again or JKR still?Who has received support from someone in circumstances where they should have publicly distanced themselves from that support?

How can you possibly think that is fair?

No one, including those campaigning for it, thinks it's fair. They just dont care about fairness for women.

It gets even worse when you consider that college scholarships are also being put at steak.

Isn't it something like 800 national and international women's records that are now held by 'transwomen'? And that's only across a few years. Give it time and there won't be any women's sport to speak of.

And prize money ...

It's just devastating really

Yes but some conservative voters also think this is bad, and if I can't just derive my moral compass by the process of doing exactly the opposite of whatever I see a conservative voter do, then how will I know how to live my life?

Um, yeah

https://www.desmog.com/2018/11/18/matthew-sarah-elliott-uk-power-couple-linking-us-libertarians-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-brexit/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/extreme-us-anti-abortion-group-ramps-up-lobbying-in-westminster

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/us-anti-abortion-groups-uk-far-right

Many of the libertarian, right wing political think tanks in the USA have links to the House of Commons

Sometimes it's a meeting here, a speaking at the same conference there and a few phone calls and sometimes it's a few donations (just below any regulatory radars) in the name of fairly innocuous sounding organisations

Very few lobby groups are going to be as overt as Just Stop Oil

People need to stop being tribal idiots.

I'm struggling to understand how/when this bit of it happened. I came of age in the early 2000s. Back then, people had brains and consciences of their own. They didn't feel the need to be identikit sheep.

What happened to change this - I honestly don't get it?

The reason why we focus on trans women when it comes to sport is because trans women can go from being very mediocre athletes in male categories to winning in female categories, whereas the reverse is not true. Trans men are absolutely no threat to male athletes and nobody really cares which category they compete in as long as they aren't doping.

I voted YANBU but I disagree with some of what you've said.

The erosion of LGB rights has come from within the movement itself rather than from outside. Coupled with the ramming of the LGBTQI+ alphabet soup/rainbow flag nonsense down everyone's throats has understandably put peoples backs up - and I say that as a lesbian.

Stonewall in the UK has been leading the charge against lesbians and women and girls particularly but gay men too. They even had the neck to change the definition of homosexuality, from same-sex attracted to same gender attracted. Total madness.

I'm not being funny OP, but you do realise in the case of Miriam Cates and Liz Truss (whose own party thinks she's fucking bonkers!) are about to be ousted? Labour WILL be in power by Christmas.

It sounds more like you're equating women who want sex based rights with right wing evangelists.

I will call this bullshit whenever I see it. Adoptive mothers in the UK do not breastfeed their adopted children. It doesn't happen. A child would not be placed with an adopter who intended to do this. Why? Because to do so would be to prioritise the wants of the adult, and adoption in the UK always explicitly prioritises the needs of the child over the wantsnof the adults.

It would have been quicker and simpler if you'd just said you are stuck in a purity spiral.

People agreeing on one issue, doesn't mean they are cosying up, championing, following, looking up to, supporting, validating or giving credence to each others' views on anything else.

If I should ever find myself at an 'is water wet' conference, and Donald Trump also speaks in support of the theory that water is wet, you seem to think I should use my platform at the 'is water wet' conference to disclaim all of his other ideas. If someone at the conference asks me for my opinion on his other ideas I'll give it, but I'm going to use my 'is water wet' platform to share my thoughts on the wetness of water.