How the trans row will end in compromise

[Igneococcus]

Sorry, I can't do a sharetoken at the moment, but this is a comment by Kenny Farquharson in the Times. I don' think he understands the issue.

And surely that claim below is wrong, or is that a different judgment where some judge claimed that sex didn't necessarily mean biological sex?

"Dorrian upheld an earlier judgment that trans women should be treated the same way as biological women under legislation to improve gender balance on the boards of public agencies. She rejected the argument that this was incompatible with the Equality Act in which, she accepted, “sex” meant biological sex."

How the trans row will end in compromise (thetimes.co.uk)

As a man, my view on the definition of woman is necessarily as an outsider.

and that is where he should have stopped..

Exactly no.
What a thing to write! Surely manhood should be doing all that with those few men this is about.

Quite the ratio our Kenny's rocking there!

Another mediocre male journalist weighing in with his half baked notions about male supremacy & women's subservience.
The comments are (as usual) informed, articulate & a joy to read.

What do they say, MrsOverton?

Sigh. Déja vu all over again, innit?
Just no.

Are comments visible when an article is accessed with a sharetoken?

This is the highest-rated comment so far, 374 recommends, which is quite a lot in the Scotland section:
"Another man who seems to think women are 'gate-keeping' womanhood for fun (hint: we don't gate-keep, biology does). The fact is that men commit upwards of 98% of violent sexual offences, and there is no evidence -none whatsoever- that adopting a trans identity changes that. We want men out of our spaces for our safety. We want men out of our sports for basic fairness. The 'compromise' that we should pretend that SOME men are women, the ones with the government vetting, is asking us to accept risk of harm to spare the feelings of men. And that is unacceptable. What in the world is so hard to understand about that? Women's safety comes above men's sad feelings. It is not really a lot to ask, one would think."

Visceral trans row will end in compromise

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5346098f-f17c-416d-bead-d6779b367925?shareToken=a8ee3a60e31dabf674ca056f906401e0

Try this 🤷🏻‍♀️

Absolutely.

I am sick to the back teeth of men telling women what they should accept, how they should compromise, what rights they have to give away, it is misogyny pure and simple and yet Farquharson will vehemently deny he is a misogynist.

Stop telling women what to do Mr Farquharson.

I know lots of people have already said it, but to be so scared of the word 'women' that he comes out with this 'womanhood' bollox is so telling. It's even worse than accusing us of femininity.

Heaven forbid they use words that make women sound like perfectly normal humans.

He looks so pleased with himself though. You can just hear him saying, "Come on now Ladies and let me tell you all about my cutting edge new plan..." except that he's not bothered to engage with any of the substance of the issue. But maybe blinded by the dazzling radiance of his brilliance and compassion we won't notice that.

The compromise required of this particular side of the debate is to accept that for most intents and purposes a man can indeed become a woman in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law.

Using this logic, women aren't part of society because otherwise we'd accept men could become women.

Also, why should we just accept the law? Isnt it there for our benefit as much as anyone elses? Ive not heard a single logical reason why i should be forced to see a man as a woman. If legislators can't justify the law, should it be in place?

What a smug prize **he is.
And a newspaper paid him for that?

What @FlirtsWithRhinos said.

Talk about the male gaze in all its 100% maleness. Gloriousness FGS.

It is so interesting that he says 'as a man... I am necessarily an outsider'. Why is that? Could it be because you are male... like all transwomen?

As a man, my view on the definition of woman is necessarily as an outsider.

Why can they never see the hypocrisy even when it is so big it's visable from space?
He begins by pointing out that a man can never be a woman, waffles a bit and concludes we should let some men be women. What kind of thought process leads from the opening sentence to the conclusion?

Do you identify as one?

I notice that none of our masquerading men or "we just don't know" idiots, get involved in these more complex threads.

They just don't have the depth of:

Knowledge
Passion
Understanding
Analytical ability
"lady brain"

To come up with anything more coherent than "let's be kind".

Great, keep the opportunist predators out. Of all of our spaces.

He looks a proper shitwit doesn't he?

Hang on a minute minute. I took from the title that he was proposing that both sides would compromise… it seems that he is proposing women submit and accept that men should be able to watch us undress, intimidate us on hospital wards, rape us in prison… that everyone be compelled to lie to protect certain special people from the reality of how others perceive them… that children be told that their instincts are all wrong and there is no observable difference between men and women, that they might have been born in the wrong body and require surgery and drugs to fix it depending on their likes and dislikes…

So in effect he proposes that we restructure society on the basis of subjective, fluid gender identity instead of objective, immutable sex? He thinks that is a compromise? 🤔

There are no practically applicable safeguards. No one can ask to see a GRC. The legal fiction is not workable. The GRC must be repealed. Until it is any man who enters women’s changing rooms or toilets cannot be questioned. There are no safeguards. To my mind the safety of women and children takes precedence over anyone’s need for society to keep up the charade that they are not in fact the sex that they are.

Yep someone needs to grab a dictionary and show him the meaning of 'compromise' because he appears to have confused it with capitulation.

Who the hell is this gasbag?

I think this is language creep again.

By defining something as a compromise in which women effectively lose all their protections, it is an attempt to make women not accepting of 'a compromise' as being totally unreasonable.

Something tells me, this is unlikely to wash. Especially as medical scandals eventually start to break.

Compromise, in his dictionary, must mean something different to what it means in mine. There is no compromise on the part of men or transwomen, is there? As always, it's just actual women having to give up rights and safety.