Butches against transpohobia

[Catsanfan]

I saw a woman wearing a T shirt saying 'Butches against transphobia' today. It astounds me that some lesbians would think that way. I wonder what she would do if presented with a penis on a date?

Well, as everyone on here says: "we can always tell".

So the situation would never arise.

The view that you should only support the rights of particular groups because you are willing to date them is really quite repellent
Can you explain what rights trans people are currently being denied, @DadJoke? What does supporting their rights actually look like in practice?

I can do better, I can tell you a rights that transgender people already have which GC people want to remove, for example, the right to use bathrooms and changing rooms which match their gender, as they currently do.

I sure you can come up with lots of reasons why you oppose these rights, but they are existing rights.

No, that's not a "better" answer; it doesn't address the question 🙄

Just last night on The Archers a gay character was agonising over the fact he had called another child ‘queer’ as an insult at school. It was certainly used like that in my school.

Let's imagine that this is correct.

It wouldn't actually mean that "trans women are women" would it?

It wouldn't actually mean that it's fair for trans women to compete in women’s sports would it?

It wouldn't actually mean that it's a good thing that women can't access single sex services would it?

If you think, well, we can't actually defend this stuff with reasonable arguments, but it's OK, because the next generations will bring cultural change anyway, and our side will be victorious, then not much moral integrity in that.

And anyway, what the next generation does, could be turned around in another few generations. And that's much more likely, if there was never a good justification in the first place!

Sorry, I still can't see that we've had any answers to the key questions we were asking of the genderists on here, many asked several pages ago now, of:

a) How do you define "feminine"? (And are women who wouldn't count as "feminine" by this definition actually permitted to call themselves women?)

b) Is it acceptable for lesbians who wish to meet up with and date ONLY other women to do so without the presence of males, including males who identify as female? Is actively preventing them from being able to do so if they wish an example of "live and let live" or is it something else entirely?

c) Do you consider it bigoted for women to be solely same-sex attracted, rather than being bisexual or pansexual?

Stop twisting language.

When you say "the right to use bathrooms and changing rooms which match their gender", what you actually mean is "the right to use bathrooms and changing rooms for members of the opposite sex".

That is not a right any other group has.

There is no such thing as a bathroom or a changing room which "matches your gender", because gender is made up nonsense.

There is no right to use a bathroom based on your gender

They want to create that right

Does DadJoke and others understand why it was that women historically fought to have single sex spaces and services in certain circumstances?

What evidence based on those reasons do you have that suggest that males who identify as women should be given access to those spaces and services, when we exclude ALL other males?

It's rewriting history. Queer was definitely a slur when I was at school in England in the 80s.

If anyone is using the bathroom for their gender it is either because of the fact that they have decided that they have the right to do so (who gave them that right and when was it discussed with women?) or because they have a GRC and this means that they are 'legally' female through a legal fiction that needs repealling.

And do they understand that women never consented to allowing male people into their spaces, not even the ones who really do feel like Shania Twain?

And mine. Absolute rubbish that it wasn't. I'm in my early 50s. South East London and it was very common indeed to hear it as a slur in my school and indeed locally.

Getting very tired of these controlling people trying to impose their own false version of a history that I remember very clearly on me and others.

OK, so you are saying that "trans rights" involves being able to be treated as what you identify as.

And that's a radically new basis on which to try to claim "rights".

You can identify as a different age and be treated accordingly? You can identify as a different ethnic group and be treated accordingly?

It's also a claimed type of "right" which is going to conflict with other claimed rights that would appear to many people to be reasonable.

It may also be using a false claim, or a highly suspect claim, to try to operate. So something like, "trans women are women, and so therefore they should have the right...". So it may involve claiming rights on a false or completely unsupported basis.

And so I think it's obvious that you can't just throw around rhetoric about "trans rights are human rights". Rather, you need to be able to justify that such things are actually real "rights" in the first place.

Indeed, if toilets were separated by gender then there would be 50 plus bathrooms in every building to cover demi-guy, xenogender, genderfae etc. Instead they are clearly divided by the binary division of sex (plus separate unisex accessible facilities if you're lucky).

Yes, ironically, it's not trans activists who believe trans people should have same rights as everyone else.

Trans activists believe that trans people should have rights no one else has, and have until now had significant success in getting the political establishment on board with that.

Now women/gender critical feminists are fighting back and people like @DadJoke are saying, "You're trying to remove trans people's rights!"

Well I suppose that is true, in a way. But only the rights which no other group has, rights which are not in fact rights and should never have been granted in the first place. What we are asking for is equal rights. Again.

None of this.

It's not novel, it's baked into the EA2010 in the form of gender reassignment. Conflicting rights are common. and the law handles them. These are legislated rights. Not the strawman of "being treated as what you identify with" in general. There are no rights associated with "identifying" as anything else. While it's true that people could (and probably do) lie about their race, sexuality and religion, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights associated with protected categories, and it's certainly not a reason to remove those rights.

Just to point out to the lurkers that during the GRR bill discussions (last December), an amendment to pause an application for a GRC for those charged with rape or sexual assault was defeated by the casting vote of the Presiding Officer. And in addition, another amendment which sought to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender was also voted down.

This is in addition to loopholes in the DBS/Disclosure Scotland processes when changing both name and gender, as identified by KPSS.

Are you aware that there is also a protected characteristic of "sex" in the Equality Act, which allows for single sex spaces and services which exclude even trans people with a gender recognition certificate?

But that it is basically never used because pressure from anti-democratic LGBT lobby groups is more compelling than the actual law for most service providers, even assuming that they know the actual law and haven't had "training" from Stonewall which misrepresents the law in this area completely?

The Equality Act provides that someone who has undergone, is in the process of, or is planning to undergo "gender reassignment" is entitled to protection from discrimination.

That is absolutely NOT the same thing as open access to spaces and services for members of the opposite sex, which is what is currently being allowed to happen.

I repeat.

Women did not consent to this.

Does that not matter to you at all?

I can tell you a rights that transgender people already have which GC people want to remove, for example, the right to use bathrooms and changing rooms which match their gender, as they currently do.

No they don't have any special legal right to do so. All men have the "right" to access female spaces, it's not a legal issue, we don't have "bathrooms" they are public toilets, but have never had "bathroom laws" like the US. And single sex spaces apply to all members of the opposite sex, not just the ones that decide they need to respect them. It's the social contract, not law. And service providers have the legal right to designate spaces for females only.

This is rewriting history.

When the Equality Act 2010 came into force gender reassignment meant, well, gender reassignment.

Not gender self ID, the act of wearing a certain set of clothes was never meant to confer sex based rights.

I don't think @DadJoke care's one iota about women's consent. He appears to be making up things about legislation to suit himself.

Once again, I find myself lamenting the fact that none of this legislation saw fit to actually try to define "gender".

What exactly is it that is being "reassigned"?

It's illustrative that certain posters, instead of examining their own homophobic prejudices about same sex attraction as per the OP, have chosen to wang on about "bathrooms" and derail the thread with their poor understanding of gender critical beliefs and women's rights.