Yvette Cooper on LBC

[Flowerly]

Did anyone else hear this? She just clearly said that there are differences between what she called 'biological women' and TW and that just because you change your gender does not mean that you change your sex! I almost fell over in shock.

Is this the start of a full on turnaround from the LP? Will I be able to vote for them again? I so want to!

The law does not have the power to change reality.

Bad laws need to be repealed for the better functioning of society. This bad law especially had created many problems and tensions in society.

No doubt there was a period where people resented being called 'heterosexual' or 'straight'

I doubt it, but you are good at making things up.

It’s a made up term which is insidiously being used to erase sex. There are women and there are men. Some women may well call themselves transmen, and some men may well call themselves transwomen. The term ‘cis’ is totally unnecessary. It implies that I am a subset of my own sex.

Indeed, I don’t think anyone has ever doubted that sexual orientation is a reality even if in some times and places same sex orientation has been persecuted and criminalised. We know that most humans experience physical attraction to other humans.

On the other hand I and many other people:

don’t believe that people have sexed souls.

don’t believe that humans (or any other animals) can have a soul which is the opposite sex to the body.

don’t believe that we should restructure society around a novel and minority belief that humans have sexed souls which are sometimes trapped in a body of the opposite sex.

don’t believe we should change our language to reflect the belief that humans have sexed souls which are sometimes trapped in a body of the opposite sex.

don’t believe that medically and surgically damaging the bodies of men, women or children is appropriate treatment for mental illness/distress rather than physical illness, or for religious or ideological beliefs.

Cis gender is not a recognised term, unless you live in TRA LA Land.

It's like when they gave a guide on terms a few years back.

Women had 'front holes'.

Transwomen were the ones that had vaginas.

They do this all the time. Redefine things men want as things men have/are and redefine things women have as a sub section of other things that are completely non existent and unrecognisable.

Fuck that shit.

You’re now whitewashing history so that you can minimise obvious parallels between homophobic movements and transphobic ones.

One of the most insidious and pervasive arguments made about gay people is that they choose to be gay. One nasty consequence of this belief is conversion therapy, a deeply harmful practice. The idea that people have always believed in sexual orientation as most do today is preposterous. Sadly, many still believe that being gay is a choice, which results in laws that aim to reduce the visibility of gay people and culture out of a fear that awareness will turn people gay. The UK has a shameful recent history with such laws, and in America laws like that are starting to gather momentum again.

As for the terms heterosexual and straight, their etymology isn’t some big secret. A hundred years ago Merriam Webster defined heterosexual as ‘morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex’. This is not a label that straight people embraced in its early day because, like with this conversation about cis and trans, many want to be considered normal and are happy to other those who are different.

Women asserting that sex is real are not "whitewashing history"; it's the history and lives of women that are being whitewashed.

You’re now whitewashing history so that you can minimise obvious parallels between homophobic movements and transphobic ones.

The only equivalence is in your head. There is extensive, documented history of the persecution of homosexual men, including homosexual acts being criminal in this country. There is no such history associated with transsexuality/transgender; in fact such people have often been lauded and admired, for example Jan Morris (probably undeservedly), and women have “presented as men” for various reasons throughout history without being persecuted any more than they would have been “as women”.

Shes not whitewashing history at all

i don’t think anyone realised you were going back 100 years…I mean why tit about, lets go back 1000!

back in the 70/80’s i would agree…to an extent that some people said ‘i’m not straight i’m normal’ and ‘gay means happy’

but people certainly did not have an issue with the more ‘scientific’ terms of heterosexual and homosexual

You and I would like to think so. The law hasn’t changed reality although TRAs claim it has. It has determined that those with a GRA should be treated as women. We’ve then seen much muddying of that so that in practice it’s invading all sorts of areas. This needs to be stopped, but there’s no way the EQA2010 will be rolled back. It must be clarified and strengthened

Whether choice or innate, persecuted or accepted, whatever the terminology used it has always been known that human beings are physically attracted to each other, we have long known that human beings of the same sex can be physically attracted to each other even if the majority are attracted to the opposite sex.

The belief that there such things as sexed souls which can be trapped in the wrong body is novel, minority and the imposition of this belief on society has implications for everyone. It has no connection that I can see to sexual orientation. It seems much more connected to the imposition of belief systems by making participation in society and its institutions difficult or impossible such as not being able to attend Oxford or Cambridge universities unless you were a member of the Church of England in the past.

Absolutely! They have made pledges to do so on many occasions. They must think we're stupid.

Early in 2022 Sunak was saying he was going to protect the words 'Women' and 'Mother' - it is not just a recent thing.

Why is there a need to define and give oneself a name or label in the first place? It seems imperative these days for people to identify themselves in such ways.

This!

I think it is associated with mass identity crisis among certain parts of the population.

Also it really suits businesses and corporations for a variety of reasons, especially technology companies.

Every time I ask a question that would help me determine whether or not I am trans, I am ignored or given a circular definition.

Will someone on this thread be confident enough that they understand what "transgender" means that they can help me find this out?

I'm having an identity crisis and so many people come on these boards and say "trans" and "cis" are easily understandable terms, but they never actually use their knowledge to help me - just try and fob me off. I'm neurodiverse so feel quite lost being deliberately kept in the dark.

It's a long shot but I am asking one last time if someone can help. To start off, I don't persistently want to be the opposite sex, but it would likely benefit me to be genuinely perceived as the opposite sex in certain circumstances. I don't know if I have a gender identity, or if I did which one it is, or which gender identities are supposed to "match" the female sex.

If you can't help because you think it's too complicated then happy to hear that as well.

Anyone?

Apologies if I have contributed to any derailing.

The OP is about Labour. From what I can see the Labour Party fully believes in the concept of the soul of one sex being trapped in the body of the opposite sex, they seem to believe that this unverifiable soul body mix up can and should be treated with drugs and surgeries which will impair the functioning of peoples’ previously healthy bodies. They seem to want to change how we structure society on the basis of this belief.

I don’t trust them when they talk about safe spaces or about protecting women and girls.

I think they are playing word games to try to hide their real philosophical stance from ordinary voters.

I think you are right.

It sounds like you don't believe you're the opposite sex, you just want to pretend to be the opposite sex in certain circumstances because you will get some benefit from it.

That does not sound like trans to me. I'm not an expert, though.

The OP is about Labour. From what I can see the Labour Party fully believes in the concept of the soul of one sex being trapped in the body of the opposite sex, they seem to believe that this unverifiable soul body mix up can and should be treated with drugs and surgeries which will impair the functioning of peoples’ previously healthy bodies

Well yes, but they also presumably include non-binary people who don't want to be either sex, and people with other gender identities, so it's not just about "being the opposite sex really". Which is why it's not very understandable to the average joe what their position actually is. And it just gets handwaved away.

Agree with @NotHavingIt and @PomegranateOfPersephone

I wish people would stop bleating on about their identity, sexuality, “gender” (whatever that means)…nobody really cares who you are or what you consent to do in private with whomever you choose.

But a man is not and will never be a woman, and should always stay out of women’s single-sex spaces.

I don't want to, otherwise I would. I recognise that in many situations men are treated more favourably than women.

I don't know how to tell if I'm the opposite gender - what would I look for, what are any defining characteristics of me being a man?
And I could still be trans if I was non-binary or agender or bi-gender Am I? Again, what are the characteristics?

I guess you're a woman? And you say you don't want to be a man. So... I'm struggling to see why you're worried about this other than you think you'd achieve more by saying you're a man.

@AmuseBish yes, it all seems so confusing and complex. God knows how a 12 year old can claim to be one of these “identities”, if most of us adults can’t work it out. Anyone would think that you have to suspend your usual way of understanding the world and engage in illogical, magical thinking 🤔

I don't mean this rudely at all, but it looks like you're working on the assumption that "trans" means "wanting to be the opposite sex". It doesn't. That's what we all thought it meant, up to a few years ago anyway, which was why I didn't really have a problem with it.

But it's now "trans women are literally women" and trans covers all sorts of gender identities (72 at last count?), none of which seem to have any concrete definitions. And "woman" is now a gender and nothing to do with the female sex. So I don't know if I'm a woman or not! It's all been redefined but without telling us what the new definition is. I have not seen anyone who claims that a woman is not a female (and there are many such people) ever clarify what a woman is. It's a feeling, apparently, or a soul or identity, but I don't know if my feelings are a woman's feelings, because no-one will say what they are.