Am I going to lose friends over the trans/TERf etc debate?

[Maria53]

I am 28 and I feel the vast majority of my peers disagree with me.

I believe in equal rights for everyone. However I have become increasingly concerned about the threat of single sex spaces being taken away. The vast majority of my friends shrug their shoulders and say 'what's the big deal?' and I am incredulous.

One of my best friends of over a decade was banned from Twitter for using the word 'Terf' - we then got into a debate where we clearly disagreed. So I have never posted about it again since to avoid arguing with her and we have remained good friends.

Tonight another friend posted against JK Rowling and I disagreed with her because I am tired of staying silent. Well no sooner had I done this my close friend jumped in to disagree with me as well. Both said I am in the wrong.

I now feel sad because I know they are judging me but I stand by my convictions. Am I going to have to accept I may lose friends over our polarised opinions? Has anyone experienced this?

OP was clearly asking about what to do if a friend holds rigid views on a subject and effectively expects others to remain silent rather than disagree. The silencing of women and the unwillingness of men to allow their voices to be heard is an important feminist issue.

Poor FalseImage though seems incapable of writing a post which is not about trans. It is reasonable to wonder what the roots of her obsession are. Phobia, fetish and more are contenders. However whatever, it would be nice if she could start her own thread an stop disrupting this.

@Datun That's correct for a sex discrimination case but not correct for a gender reassignment discrimination case as a "comparator" isn't applicable. If you want to exclude transgender people (no GRC) then it's an exception clause based on proportional and legitimate reasons. If you want to exclude a transgender person with a GRC (legally defined sex changed) you can't use sex discrimination. These are the grey areas of the law that need better definitions and precedents. If you think this is all clear cut, you're out of your depth, so go seek advice.

Yet another post about transgender people. Obsessional or what. FalseImage you said you were leaving.

Cant you just accept people for what they are other than in single sex spaces where women have a right to privacy.

@Needmoresleep You've no doubt noticed the discussion I've been involved with here has not been a one person discussion. So pointing your finger at me suggests your slightly biased or confused.

But you seem to be a very clear example of someone who seems incapable of discussing women's issues without referencing transwomen.

Given the very small number of legally accepted transwomen, less than 5,000, this is very very odd.

Perhaps you need to get out more. (With social distancing, of course.)

@Needmoresleep Yes I said I was leaving, but yet you and others keep tagging me? Why if I've left? Kind of pointless unless your intention was to bring me back in. Maybe you could explain.

I virtually never tag anyone. And have not tagged you.

I am concerned though. FWR has achieved a reputation for being trans-obessed. But most women are not. They are happy to live and let live, but dont want to be silenced or to lose key protections. The only issue that has women in RL up in arms is the medicalisation of children,but that is perhaps because a couple of DC amongst people I know are at risk of having their open futures curtailed as a result of 'affirmation only' policies by schools, social workers and medical professionals.

I do understand that for some reason you have become fixated on the trans issue. However I suggest you start your own thread, not divert this one.

Just to clarify my "not playing that game" comment. My definition of "a woman" is irrelevant as we already know that transgender women with a GRC have the same rights as non transgender women when it comes to service provision

Not true. Otherwise there is no way they could be excluded. Go and peddle your misinformation elsewhere.

Also only about 1% of trans people actually have a GRC.

OP I don't think you need to lose friends over this issue-just asking questions gets people thinking.
ie why were there no 'trans' children a decade ago?
How do we know a 'trans' child won't grow up to be gay?
Why are we lying to children saying they are born in the wrong body?
How can removing a child genitals ever be best medical practice?

This such an important issue we must never feel its too complicated to talk about and raise awareness. Yes there are transexual adult males, yes there are autogynaphilic adult males but there is no such thing as trans child and I'll shout it from the rooftops

non transgender women

Not only being named as a subset of our own sex, but in relation to males as well!

If you want to exclude a transgender person with a GRC (legally defined sex changed) you can't use sex discrimination. These are the grey areas of the law that need better definitions and precedents. If you think this is all clear cut, you're out of your depth, so go seek advice.

Straw man. No one is claiming it's clear cut. Which is why feminists are campaigning to close these loopholes where we are not allowed male free space when we need it.

There are exemptions in both the GRA and the EA where it is possible to not treat a person with a GRC as their acquired "gender" in every way. Yes bla bla proportional and legitimate.

My definition of "a woman" is irrelevant

It really isn't, you know. How are these male people actually women?

But you seem to be a very clear example of someone who seems incapable of discussing women's issues without referencing transwomen

How do you suppose you should have a discussion about women's sex based rights without referencing trans women, though?
I think the whole feminism board must have missed that memo as well, as they always get mentioned in threads such as these, especially ones entitled Am I going to lose friends over the trans TERF debate
Are they all obsessed and fetishising, then going by that logic?

These are the grey areas of the law that need better definitions and precedents.

Hence the consistent and increasing refutation of Stonewall law.

Excluding male born individuals on the basis of sex discrimination, or gender reassignment, is perfectly legal. It's just that most places have been told it isn't. Deliberately and consistently.

That is now being fixed.

And whether you want to discuss the definition of the word woman or not, it is being discussed.

Proponents of Stonewall law will insist TWAW in order to shut down debate that might lead to 'precedents and definitions'.

So you can switch goalposts and say it's about the legal definition, all you like. But many of your allies base their arguments on emotions, not legalities.

If there is no longer any argument to support a legal change of sex, then it's completely unnecessary. And 'TWAW' isn't it.

These are the grey areas of the law that need better definitions and precedents.

But, but, definitions are irrelevant.

Oh sorry, you said that your definitions are irrelevant.

Makes sense now.

@Ereshkigalangcleg They are called exemptions, not loopholes. It's legal discrimination based on the exemption and related applicability. So what you're campaigning for is additional discrimination to completely ban trans people (women in particular) from these spaces. To achieve this aim you systematically associate transgender women with all kinds of negativity to convince others to follow the GC agenda. That's not for me.

Ha ha ha, banning men from womens spaces.....what meanies we are.

wait what?? feminists are campaigning for women to be centred in female only spaces along with being centred in services and programmes designed to support the needs of women. Why did no one mention this before??

So what you're campaigning for is additional discrimination to completely ban trans people (women in particular) from these spaces.

'These spaces' are designated by sex, not gender.

Ha ha ha, banning men from womens spaces.....what meanies we are.

I don't know how I manage to sleep at night.

They are called exemptions, not loopholes. It's legal discrimination based on the exemption and related applicability.

Correct.

Forcing women into vulnerable situations with men is not law. However much you suggest it is.

Our campaign is simply to be able to l have female only (biological sex rather than legal fiction) spaces and services, where such are needed for the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls. No less and no more.

I'm not sure if FalseImage is being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise, or whether he/she/they simply misunderstands what women want. This is not about trans people. It's about male people. All male people.

I wouldn't be friends with cult members