Culture war fears delay trans ruling - Sunday Times

[stumbledin]

Boris Johnson has delayed plans to block people from changing their legal gende and "self idetify" as a different sex because he does not want a "culture war".

Cant find this anywhere on line but Pink News has a report on it.

(Note how even the Times gets in a muddle about sex and gender)

Currently, a pre-operative, pre-hormone therapy, male-to-female transgender prisoner is being held in Limerick women’s prison.

The language people use around this issue is so weird and reality-defying, it makes it impossible for many people to really understand what is going on.

A 'pre-operative, pre-hormone therapy' male sex offender is no different from any other male sex offender, yet he's also described as being 'male-to-female'. And obviously, hormones and surgery can't turn a male into a female, either.

This language is designed to confuse the brain, to effect a symbolic transubstantiation of sex, even though logically everyone knows that's impossible.

The Irish situation shows that whatever supposed boundaries are built into the legal fiction of 'sex change', they will inevitably be breached, sooner rather than later.

Kirkuk may be generally sensible but he's still framing it as a trans rights issue in that article.

Frankly I'm appalled at Starmer's utter silence on the issue of women's rights being under threat - it's good that he's not agitating in favour of undermining our existing legal rights but he isn't accepting they're under constant threat either.

I also raised an eyebrow at the idea this issue doesn't make the top ten for most voters. Which issue? Trans rights - not high on most people's agenda. Women's rights - pretty high up there for at least 51% of the electorate.I

Part of the reason we're so slow to make headway is the utter refusal of most quarters to acknowledge this as a women's rights issue. To the average citizen, rights is good and being against anyone's is bad. We are forever being cast as the baddies because the narrative is all about the hypothetical trans protagonist's quest for rights.

They've already got the same legal rights as everyone else, here. This is not about their rights; it's about the removal of ours. It's about fighting to retain the rights women fought and died for, our right to be recognised as a discrete political class of fully human people with specific needs, and I'm bloody sick of well-meaning allies' refusal to make that crystal clear.

@TyroSaysMeow

Beautifully put

Oh god I am so sick of the language-policing. I find the discussions around sports particularly unbearable - 'transwomen', people who 'transition', or, if you're really bold, 'male-bodied' people. Ffs, if you're talking about sex-segregated sports, just say 'male', it's not a slur.

what effect does people being able to legally change their sex have on the rest of society?'

Very important, yes. We need to keep foregrounding this. And the deleterious effect is not just on women's rights (which sadly many people don't care too much about), but on everyone's ability to describe and analyse reality. A society in which it is forbidden to recognise one of the most basic material truths about human beings is a society that cannot properly analyse itself, and that must move towards ever more censoriousness.

We have seen this happen on the left over the past 10 years, as trans ideology ascended and eventually become unquestionable there. There are now SO many issues on the left (especially in the US) that are completely verboten, with concomitant effects on leftists' ability to analyse and debate, well, anything.

www.vox.com/2020/7/29/21340308/david-shor-omar-wasow-speech

This article is not about trans, but about Democratic data analyst David Shor, who was fired after tweeting a study on the political effects of violent versus non-violent protests:

while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.

What role has the uncritical adoption of an ideology that claims 'people are whatever sex they say they are, and if you don't agree then you are contributing to their deaths' played in creating this type of climate?

And how can it be transformed into a healthier one (which many progressive people say they want) while 'sex change' remains a cherished shibboleth? Society cannot have free speech and open debate AND reify gender identity ideology. The latter is fundamentally at odds with the former. Because it is based on a lie.

So they passed a law which meant transgender people could self declare, but they didn't envisage the ability of transgender people to be able to self declare

That article is mind blowing. I suspect what they really mean is that it didn't occur to them that men who identify as women can also be sex offenders.

I suspect what they really mean is that it didn't occur to them that men who identify as women can also be sex offenders.

And perhaps they thought that the only men who would self-identify as women would be genuinely dysphoric and would be planning hormones and surgery even if they hadn't yet had any medical treatment. That nobody who wasn't 'genuine' would take this route.

This is what the woke keep telling us. This is a quote from a letter I received from Liberty when I cancelled my membership because of their support for self ID.

"It is also important to note that men are already perpetrating violence against women and girls daily and are not looking to the Gender Recognition Act to enable them."

So they don't seem to believe that a rapist would pretend to identify as a woman in order to gain easier access to victims.

Although I agree that the GRA should be abolished I thought I remembered that there was an ECHR ruling that individuals had to be allowed to change their ID including birth certificates to correspond to their "acquired gender". I had a quick google and this list of ECHR cases seems to indicate this is true. www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Gender_identity_ENG.pdf
There does seem to be a public interest defence (IANAL) and states do seem to be able to set some conditions on allowing the reassignment.

this issue doesn't make the top ten for most voters

Yes, this issue has been pretty successfully sold as a 'trans' issue that affects a tiny proportion of people. It is in fact a women's issue that affects more than half of the population. Politicians should get wise to that, quickly. I am more and more contemptuous of those staying silent to preserve their career while children and women are having to deal with the brunt of all the threats flung their way.

If you're a politician, this is your job. Dealing with difficult issues IS politics. Do it.

If one is allowed to "acquire" a new gender, is one allowed to "disacquire" it as well? I'd like it recognised in law that I do not have a gender identity, but I do have a biological sex. If not, why not? It's like being forced to have a religious affiliation in a theocratic state. Gender apostasy is not recognised in the creed of the woke.

Nobody has a gender - they may perform a gender.

This is the fiction of the GRA. They talk about gender identity and gender dysphoria as the issue.

And then put forward that someone can solve the issue by legally changing sex - which we all know is biologically impossible.

That's why the GRA should be abolished.

People of the same sex can now marry. And although not universally accepted (in fact less than it was in the 70s) people can and should present themselves as suits them.

As was said at the time if men had started to wear dresses at the same time there was the "ground breaking" acceptance that women could wear trousers suits, none of this would be happening.

Women's Liberation actually gave men the opportunity to break out of their socially caged box. But chose not to.

And if anything the 80s then became a backlash and started to re-inforce gender stereotypes.

"When leaders start debating contentious issues, the ensuing debate often creates more heat than light. And this is an issue that desperately needs more light and less heat." very good article

"Yet there are people in both the Conservative and Labour parties who see this issue as a useful political device and who seek a simple fight between traditionalist/pro-women Tories and progressive/pro-trans Labour."
This is so true even though most of the women I know personally who are getting upset by this are my fellow Labour or SNP supporters who are wondering what the hell happened to their rights and how did we get here when we were so pro PRIDE.

Does anyone have a share token for that Spectator article?

(The Spectator is just offer 3 months free digital access. )

The thing I don't get about the lack of realisation that some men would exploit legal sex change to access women is the way people always say "no man would do such a hideously degrading thing unless blah blah blah" without any acknowledgement that there have been men-who-identify-as-men committing sex crimes while dressed as women since forever. It's not like this is a new thing. We all know it and there's data to back it up. Why are they always so wilfully blind to their fellow men's less-savoury behaviours?

"Yet there are people in both the Conservative and Labour parties who see this issue as a useful political device and who seek a simple fight between traditionalist/pro-women Tories and progressive/pro-trans Labour."

It's despicable. I'm sure there are MPs who are genuinely scared to open their mouths, but really, what are they doing in politics if they can't handle debate?

@TyroSaysMeow

The thing I don't get about the lack of realisation that some men would exploit legal sex change to access women is the way people always say "no man would do such a hideously degrading thing unless blah blah blah" without any acknowledgement that there have been men-who-identify-as-men committing sex crimes while dressed as women since forever. It's not like this is a new thing. We all know it and there's data to back it up. Why are they always so wilfully blind to their fellow men's less-savoury behaviours?

Because we aren't allowed to say men behave badly ever without getting #NotAll etc

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

this issue doesn't make the top ten for most voters

Yes, this issue has been pretty successfully sold as a 'trans' issue that affects a tiny proportion of people. It is in fact a women's issue that affects more than half of the population. Politicians should get wise to that, quickly. I am more and more contemptuous of those staying silent to preserve their career while children and women are having to deal with the brunt of all the threats flung their way.

If you're a politician, this is your job. Dealing with difficult issues IS politics. Do it.

Spot on.

I usually agree with Kirkup but not in this case.

The problem is we've already seen woman legal rights dismantled by TRA rhetoric and lobbying.

The current status quo isn't an acceptable compromise when we see women abused by men in prisons, woman cheated out of medals (or unable to safely compete) in sport, girls being expected to share dorms/tents with boys, women's refuges open to men, woman not being allowed to request a female health professional for intimate examinations, changing rooms in most major stores being open to men etc

It's akin to Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned, so no I'm not going to credit Boris/Keir on this nor do I agree it's an issue that benefits from less "heat" by ignoring it - the fire is already burning at 1000 degrees - 998 degrees still makes it a fire....

there have been men-who-identify-as-men committing sex crimes while dressed as women since forever. It's not like this is a new thing. We all know it and there's data to back it up. Why are they always so wilfully blind to their fellow men's less-savoury behaviours?

Why indeed.

"She quite reasonably asked about processes within this clinic and where things might go in the future, given that she wants all interventions in order to feminise her body."

That's one of the gatekeeper consultants discussing the case of a male paedophile who wanted to 'transition'. They weren't convinced about this guy because of his "fetishization of pre-teen girlhood" (in the end he was denied GRS) but they started giving him hormones anyway and, interestingly, stopped referring to him with male pronouns at that point.