To think that, under the threat of "Let the war begin", there should be specific laws against male's entering female private spaces (and vice versa)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

After being told they will not be allowed to enter female toilets, changing rooms, clubs and other private sexed spaces, men have vowed to "fight" or be arrested “multiple times”

https://archive.ph/tdkd0

"Let the war begin. Fingers crossed. You need to fight for all of us globally. It’s a war."

I think it is reasonable to have a specific crime for this sort of violation of rights and privacy, rather than Outraging public decency, Voyeurism, Exposure/ indecent exposure.

It seems clear that without firm dealing with, men are going to violate these spaces again and again.

Aha but this is where all your assumptions about transness are wrong. Read some scientific literature.

But men aren’t women. Whatever loos they use.

Certainly

It’s not possible for men to “live as women” - it’s a category error. They are men basing an exclusively male experience on the sex stereotypes they hold.

This is why nobody here is taking you seriously. You don;t make counter point and counter argument you just say a variation of "No it's not" and leave it at that

You have no basis to any of your arguments here at all - if you do, show them

You may have missed my question about where detransitioners fit into this view.

Were they cured?
Were they changed?
Were they ‘misdiagnosed’ or made a faulty self diagnosis?
Not all individuals experience intense psychological distress - lots of the male ones have confirmed that for us and on that basis Stonewall even attempted to remove gender dysphoria (ie the intense psychological distress element) from the requirements to be deemed ‘trans’.

Your rules and definitions don’t account for this group either. Why not?

Meanwhile accepting it can result in a perfectly healthy full life for the individual affected.

That is arguable considering the amount of complaining and aggressive or sexualised behaviour we hear from certain groups of entitled men who want to be known as women.

If I call myself John and take testosterone supplements, will I be a man or a woman called John taking testosterone?

i rest my case about my earlier assumptions 😂

“But even if I accept anorexia is a ‘delusion’ (I don’t)…
therapy to try to correct the ‘delusion’ doesn’t help — it only intensifies distress.
The only thing that helps is accepting the reality of their experience and allowing them to live it — even if it’s not the same as our experience.

I’m so shocked that people are so narrow-minded that the availability (and humanity) of this option — letting teenage girls starve themselves to death — is so incomprehensible to them.”

When you swap “gender identity” for any other harmful, reality-denying condition, the flaw in the reasoning jumps out. The fact that challenging a false belief causes distress does not make the belief true, nor does it make indulging it an ethical or healthy response.

Physically disabled people are not prohibited from using facilities that are inaccessible to them; it’s the disability that stops them. Relying on false analogies like this is not only poor reasoning, it’s rather insulting to people with a real physical disability. (I’d love to identify out of my painful osteoarthritis, but sadly I can’t.)

This is genuinely funny.

Yes, we can treat the pain but that would not involve making everyone else pretend they are not missing a leg in order to do.

Nor do amputees demand that from society.

You have shown no reasoning, at all, evidence or argument to support any of your claims other than a variation of "it just is"

We have, or at least a number of us, I've done you the courtesy of labelling everything so it is easy to respond to

You have consistently failed to do so which only makes your argument look weak and us all assume you do not know what you are talking about

Other than - by exception one long and reasoned post of yours - which I greatly appreciated as it shows your opinions for that they are - lacking in foundation.

Please keep going. But so far the court of public opinion is firmly against you

Anorexia is completely different because anorexia makes people severely ill and is not compaible
With life. I had a cousin who died from it, many people do.

Beong trans is entirely compatible with a healthy and long, fulfilled , happy life with appropriate healthcare and support. So why on earth would we deny this to people and instead condemn them to a life of acute psychological pain?

Expecting everyone to collude in propping up your self image as the opposite sex isn’t reasonable, achievable, or healthy, and trying to control things you cannot won’t make for a happy life.

So your standard is:

• If a belief is false and leads to death, we don’t affirm it.
• If a belief is false but the body can survive while living in it, we do affirm it.

That’s not a principle, that’s just saying “if the harm is slow enough, we’ll call it healthy.”
By that logic, we’d also affirm body integrity dysphoria (people who want healthy limbs amputated), because it’s “compatible with life” if the surgery is done in sterile conditions. We’d affirm the belief of a healthy person convinced they are chronically ill, as long as the self-harm was managed by “appropriate healthcare.”

What you’re doing is carving out a special exemption for one particular false belief, not because it’s uniquely proven true, but because it’s socially fashionable to treat it as beyond question. That’s not medicine, that’s ideology with a prescription pad.

I’m impressed (but not much surprised) by the convolutions of reasoning that make anorexia a poor comparator with transgender identity and amputation a good one.

Accomodating the (factually wrong, verifiably untrue) perception of themselves as of the opposite sex.. OK, reasonable adjustments would include:

• protection against discrimination
• separate place from their male sex provision to change or use the toilet where possible
• allowing them to wear the women's work uniform in their job if their is one
• addressing them by the name chosen to reflect their trans status (Luna rather than Derek)
• similar social markers that do not impinge on the rights of others

What is not remotely reasonable or justifiable is changing the sex category of women to include males with self perception issues. Allowing them access to facilities for women, women's roles, women's competitions, women's sport, women's intimate care, women's shelters or prisons or hospital wards. Absolutely not. That is to the detriment of women.

If a trans identifying man cannot reconcile himself to his material reality of being male in every cell of his body from conception to death, that's undoubtedly difficult for him.

But most lives are difficult for lots of people. We cannot and should not dismantle society's safeguards for women and girls because some men will have very distressed feelings.

I'm with Germaine Greer - I don't care if their feelings are hurt.
(Not beyond a general "it would be nice if no one was hurt" level, at any rate.)
As Greer says, no one cares if our feelings are hurt. Life is hard, everyone has struggles. Everyone's feelings are hurt and experiences distress.

We don't demand the entire world changes to suit us. We just get on with it.

I’m saying if the proposed “treatment” is likely to result in death then of course it’s not a sensible choice.

If the proposed treatment is likely to resolve serious pain/ distress (the only way to do so) and is compatible with an individual continuing to live a healthy and happy life. Then why on earth would we deny it?

This is a basic and obvious principle of healthcare.

What about the gender fluid people like the policemen who get a different id card depending on how they feel on a particular day/minute?

Surely ‘gender fluid’ is a valid trans identity?

What about the detransitioners who say their trans identity was a mistake and wasn’t valid?

So your “basic and obvious principle” is:

If the only way to ease someone’s distress is to completely agree with their false belief and permanently alter their body to match it — we should do it, as long as it doesn’t kill them quickly.

That’s not a healthcare principle, that’s a carte blanche for any false belief that causes distress, from “I’m the wrong age” to “this healthy limb doesn’t belong to me.” You’ve just drawn the line at “doesn’t cause immediate death,” which isn’t a medical standard, it’s just special pleading for one belief you happen to approve of.

How is it convoluted in any way?

If you treat anorexia by affirming it, your patient will probably die.

If you treat transness by affirming it, your patient will be relieved of their distress and not be at any risk of death.

If that was true, we would not have so any post transition transgender suicides. Sadly I believe they still occur. This is a poor argument.

(Although I should add, I do not believe the majority of those suicides are down to a transgender identity in themselves, generally mental health comorbidities)

affirming transness does not cause suicide. Quite the reverse

Suicides, unfortunately, increase post 'gender affirming' surgery. I'll try and find the research in a mo.