Britain needs more trans people in public life, including the Commons

[Igneococcus]

Says Lord Herbert, Boris Johnson's first special envoy on LGBT rights:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0e8d186e-db6a-11eb-8f14-0bb645f59db0?shareToken=8cf210f54c9d71aa462bb34a9c3e2aa7

NOBODY POST A BISCUIT

(Public service announcement)

The number of "transwomen" is irrelevant.

More than that, the fact the the changes are motivated as being "for transwomen" is also irrelevant.

Anyone demanding free access to women's spaces for any male would get the same objection. It's the policy that's being objected to, not the people proposing it, and not their motivations.

I'm sure those making the demands think they're a benefit for some group, but that group is small, and there are 30 million women who are well aware of what 30 million men are like.

If it was male goths demanding access to women's spaces on demand, then we'd be objecting and we'd be "gothphobic"...

This is not directly about trans people. It's that the policy being proposed allegedly for their benefit causes far more total harm to far more people than it helps.

I don’t think that these “low percentages” for trans is accurate given the widening of the trans umbrella.

But I am reassured that some posters here are so relaxed about small dangers. I think as women, any risk to children and the most vulnerable is to big to take. I will not risk my children, that is a red line for me.

There is an argument that adults can take larger risks.

@[AUTO]9q79fkqum38h5

I applaud your strong sense that we should take more risks in society in other areas (even if I don’t necessarily agree). Please do pop over to the Covid board and tell anyone worried about the AstraZeneca virus how stupid they are. I think the risk of blood cloths are vastly lower than the risk of encounter any trans person. And also lower than being the victim of a crime by a person purporting to be trans. Obviously, in most cases the cloths can also be treated.

And that’s assuming all of the 0.015% is dangerous. I’m assuming the majority of that fraction isn’t.

So? Women have rights to privacy and dignity. My DP isn't dangerous, but I don't expect other women to want to share female only space with him, or any other male person.

It's a bit bloody early for bingo, but I've got my dabber.

Tiny minority ✅
Echo chamber ✅
Won't affect you ✅
Hasn't affected me ✅
Have you even thought about this? ✅
Lead in with toilets ✅

Echo chamber was deployed relatively early, so it's entirely likely a flounce will come before I get a chance to mark off Predatory lesbians and More Oppressed than actual women, but I'm poised...

Well Floral there is also the 'lacks logic' to tack in there too.

@Helleofabore

Well Floral there is also the 'lacks logic' to tack in there too.

This is why I never win at bingo. Miss the obvious because of the irony.

Bollocks. Lol

I am sure though that these posters have worked out that pointing out the numbers doesn't actually work in the way they hoped it would. It does, however, highlight just how uninformed they come across and of course, hypocritically, points out their own lack of critical thinking and logic.

But it has been a glorious live demonstration of that.

And other inequalities.

Hold on. Let me get this straight. This forum is dominated by discussions on the dangers of trans, and there are only 0.015% trans women in the UK. Interesting! Does that make any of you stop and think for a moment?

Yes. It does make me stop and think. It makes me think how on earth can such a seemingly small group of people entirely capture and destroy the rights and safeguards of women and children. Right across the world. Putting them at physical risk. Destroying the bodies and lives of children. It's incredible isn't it. And that's why the topic is dominated here. It's not about the rights of a small number of transpeople. It's about what's ridden in on the back of the trans ideology movement. Damaging to women and children, and also that small number of transpeople you seemingly care about, and for who the law was actually designed to protect. Seems an opportunity had been spotted here and abused.

Have you stopped to think about that for a moment?

@Etorih

Hold on. Let me get this straight. This forum is dominated by discussions on the dangers of trans, and there are only 0.015% trans women in the UK. Interesting! Does that make any of you stop and think for a moment?

Yes. It does make me stop and think. It makes me think how on earth can such a seemingly small group of people entirely capture and destroy the rights and safeguards of women and children. Right across the world. Putting them at physical risk. Destroying the bodies and lives of children. It's incredible isn't it. And that's why the topic is dominated here. It's not about the rights of a small number of transpeople. It's about what's ridden in on the back of the trans ideology movement. Damaging to women and children, and also that small number of transpeople you seemingly care about, and for who the law was actually designed to protect. Seems an opportunity had been spotted here and abused.

Have you stopped to think about that for a moment?

MIC DROP

Bravo 👏🏻

It's not about the rights of a small number of transpeople. It's about what's ridden in on the back of the trans ideology movement

I see this often: 'real transpeople are fine it is just other men'. No! When the rights of transpeople, however few and genuine, undermines the rights of women and girls then they are the problem too. Laural Hubbard might feel themselves to be totally genuine but their actions means women lose out on medals, on the chance to go to tge olympics, on something to aspire to, and on the chance of being world record holders possiby for ever

And not just Hubbard, but Stephanie Barrett too now.

I see this often: 'real transpeople are fine it is just other men'. No! When the rights of transpeople, however few and genuine, undermines the rights of women and girls then they are the problem too. Laural Hubbard might feel themselves to be totally genuine but their actions means women lose out on medals, on the chance to go to tge olympics, on something to aspire to, and on the chance of being world record holders possiby for ever

I didn't say that. Simply pointing out the position: that the law was designed to protect a tiny minority and that position has been abused.

Personally I don't think it's feasible for any men to be using women's spaces anymore, no matter how they identify. Whether it's toilets / showers / shortlists/ sport/ prisons, the list is endless. Once there were seemingly so few transwomen that women were generally polite about it. But it's so wide open to abuse now that another solution needs to be found. One that doesn't involve the rights / safeguards ands spaces for women being taken over.

So... with 5000 female competitors in the Olympics 0.015% is 0.75 of a competitor. Yet we know of two so far. There is also Chelsea Wolfe as a reserve competitor who still gets the Olympic experience that a female competitor could have had to inspire her to continue to train to reach that level.

So, that means 3 female competitors have been displaced so far and I have not even checked volleyball teams from Brazil or relay teams from China....

See what happens when you start telling women they are fear mongering over very small numbers.... they use those numbers against your 'logic' to point out just how ridiculous and meaningless your assertions actually are.

Incredible really that such a small population is so over represented isn't it.

Simply pointing out the position: that the law was designed to protect a tiny minority and that position has been abused.

But the law didn't need to be abused before the rights of women were undermined. Even from the offset women were expected to give up their privacy, dignity and safety. The fact that the numbers were few so fewer women were impacted doesn’t alter this.

Incredible really that such a small population is so over represented isn't it.

Rather incredible.

I am sure that is what the posters actually meant. And the echo chamber was referring to those who ignored the actual reality of what is being allowed under the guise of 'inclusive'.

Don't need to be a statistical genius to realise that this type of 'inclusivity' means females, historically the most excluded group and still not at full parity in the realities of the statistics representing everyday life, are again being excluded. Just logic, innit.

But the law didn't need to be abused before the rights of women were undermined. Even from the offset women were expected to give up their privacy, dignity and safety. The fact that the numbers were few so fewer women were impacted doesn’t alter this

True.

🥱

I will be happy to campaign for more trans representation once we've got 51% female representation. Until then, I'll campaign for greater rep of women in public life,