Wtf is Alan Cummings blithering on about?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Just seems to be a stream of tripe and non sequiturs. Was he drunk? High?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12948343/Alan-Cumming-says-public-arms-Rishi-Sunak-denying-existence-trans-people.html

If someone says the earth is flat, it may help to understand their motivations for thinking this if you want to persuade them otherwise. It's irrelevant if you want to assess the truth of the claim.

I am unlikely to ever meet Cummings and have the opportunity discuss the biases in his reasoning. Knowing his motivations and seeing what may have skewed his perspective isn't going to make me more 'open' to seeing the world in the same topsy-turvy way.

Most people don't want an end goal in which it's impossible to be accepted as transgender and everyone must be treated at all times and in all ways as the sex they were born with.

These are two separate things. It is possible to accept that some people believe themselves to be the opposite sex & they can, for example, call themselves by a name traditionally used by that sex. They don't become the opposite sex, and where sex is relevant they can't be treated as the opposite sex. I think you also need to define what you really mean by "treated at all times and in all ways as the sex they were born with"

And you are entitled to your opinions on the interpretation of what he said.

I, however, don't feel that you can separate out what he said to be aimed at politicians and only politicians. And besides which, which politicians? There are politicians who are discussing the very same things that feminists are discussing. That you, personally, feel that they are just indulging in distraction and should not be trying to tighten laws or to get out some clear guidance on this issue is your own issue to deal with.

People with CAIS are, in fact, male people. And it is yet to be evidenced that for the purpose of sport that they do not have advantages over female athletes and should not therefore have their own category in the future. It is not a 'culture war' to discuss this.

Also, a government needs to be able to have many focuses. So, again, framing this as being not important is your personal opinion and there are plenty of others who disagree with you about the level of importance.

However, this thread is about what he said. Regardless of what you believe the priorities for government debates and discussion should be, he has certainly made the statement he made. If he was being specific, then he should have clarified. Did he? Has he? He has had time to do so.

And he did make claims that are factually incorrect: "We don't really talk about policies, we don't really talk about real issues, or things that are really important"

Maybe he doesn't. But we do. All the time. At work, on here, and in real-life conversations I'm constantly discussing policies and things that are really important.

Going back to Cumming, he’s careful to restrict the comment to politicians in England - can’t criticise or offend the Americans or the Scots, that will affect his income/identity. The Scots and the Americans love to bash the brits though. It’s all a bit “I’ll be spiteful to Emma and the top clique will love me”.

And the impact of gender ideology IS really important

And actually, even if he is saying that 'some' politicians are discussing toilets and treatment for children, do you honestly believe that these are not issues worthy of discussion? Because they are indeed impacted directly by legislation and Government policy. Hence why politicians are discussing them. Because even the definition of the word 'woman' directly impacts quite a few laws and government policies.

Would you like to tell us when our politicians CAN discuss these issues in direct context of the laws and policies that are currently under discussion? Or just that they should not be discussing them at all. In your opinion.

Cummings can have his own views. What he can't have is his own facts.

Trans is schrodinger politics. It's so important that MPs have to rewrite laws by stealth at the behest of lobbyists and destroy the human rights of 51% of the population but at the same time so unimportant that the general public talking about it means they're engaging in a trivial culture war. Well the box is open now and we can see what it is.

Exactly, but obviously the moderators don't like people accepting that there are only two sexes.

I think if you are someone who believes gender is more important than sex you could reasonably hold that point of view.

My personal opinion is man = adult human male, woman = adult human female, people with DSD get to identify how they choose (except for sporting advantage).

Exactly. Look into his background to understand his motivations, is anyone on here trying to change his mind? Seems unlikely.

I'd also say the same about flat earthers/creationists etc. I wouldn't be looking at their views as an attempt to change my or their mind, more to understand their thought process and shy they believe those things.

Debates where people oversimplify and reduce the other side are rarely useful or productive.

I'd like our government to do what they said they were going to, and update the EA so sex means biological sex. They are refusing to do that.

Then I'd like organisations to apply proper sex based exemptions where required (prisons, sports, women's shelters, group counselling, medicine, changing rooms)

I'd like proper psychological support for people (including children) with gender identity issues to treat any comorbid health conditions and ensure they are getting support.

Toilets are behind those things on my list of priorities, and also very far behind a long list of other things I'd like our government to be doing for women.

To be honest, when I see people talking about toilets I just think they haven't been paying much attention 🤷‍♀️

But this is why it's a culture war - take a complex issue like children transitioning without patents knowledge, fiddle around for ages doing fuck all, then advise its up to schools if they want to tell children they just can't be the opposite gender, OK?

That's hardly an appropriate response to a very serious issue that's causing a lot of families issues and leaving children with lifelong consequences of a decision they made as a teenager.

Makes me so mad that suggesting more nuance from politicians is seen as "not listening to women".

Or that a public figure trying to talk about the negative impact of culture wars is written off because he hasn't 100% said what posters on this board want to hear

That wasn't the question. You said AC didn't say anything factually incorrect. If he believes there are other human sexes besides male & female then that is factually incorrect. Belief in 'gender' (whatever he or you think that is) being more important than sex doesn't change what sex is, it just changes the significance he gives it. Similarly, however people with DSDs 'identify' doesn't change the number of sexes that exist in humans.

I can concede that there are politicians using this issue to distract from other issues. Often they have no actual clue what they are talking about, but as long as they are saying the 'right thing' then the people who agree with them don't interrogate it too much. That doesn't make AC's blitherings any less incoherent. Suggesting that anyone, especially policymakers, shouldn't be 'allowed' by the public to say there are only 2 sexes is a mindblowingly arrogant position to take. It also doesn't mean that these are not issues that need discussing.

I also think that AC is suffering from the common complaint of trying to shoehorn US political narratives into UK politics.

And toilets are really the manifestation of the changes that are needed. They might be 'low priority' in your opinion, however, those 'proper sex based exemptions' you are discussing will rely significantly on most of the changes for the 'toilet' issue. People discuss them because they are something universal that the majority feel they are impacted by.

So, while you declare them as being 'behind' your list of priorities, they are part of the same discussion whether you, personally, believe they are or not. Would you like to tell us just what laws and policies are solely aimed at toilets? And actually, single sex toilet provision in schools is fucking high on my agenda and will do a fuck load of good for girls of my own acquaintance.

Or is it just public toilets you feel is not worthy of attention?

Oh come now. You know he was using "male" and "female" in place of man and woman. You also know that categorisation of every single human into male and female is not straightforward so it is overly simplistic to say "there are only two sexes" in an informal interview like he was having.

I don't have a belief in gender, I think its nonsense. I also think God is nonsense but don't spend my days telling creationists why they are wrong because 1) it goes nowhere and 2) they are perfectly entitled to believe nonsense if they want to.

Yes it is frustrating in the extreme.

And it is because of the need to potentially change the law to have then be able to give that very clear cut advise. I agree that it should have been done, and that it should never have been allowed to get to this point. Wouldn't it be great if all political parties got behind these changes right now and pushed it through? Wouldn't that be just fucking brilliant?

Why do you think changing rooms are a priority but toilets are trivial?

I don't hear many people complain at all about the status quo, e.g. ladies and gents. So am bemused as to why it comes up.

We made progress as GC feminists around sports and prisons, not toilets.

But if toilets are your priority, that's your choice of course.

Even those people with a DSD are categorised as either male or female because I don't believe that any one can produce both sperm and ova in their body.

It is as straightforward as that. Male and female.

Why don’t you apply this logic to us Adam? :

” I also think God is nonsense but don't spend my days telling creationists why they are wrong because 1) it goes nowhere and 2) they are perfectly entitled to believe nonsense if they want to.”

You seem to have missed my point.

Can you please tell us exactly what laws that we are discussing needing to be changed do not refer to toilets as well? Exactly which laws and exactly which policies?

Well Labour will defend their acts, both EqA and GRA and will oppose biological sex definition

EHCR have given go ahead, post attempt to hound out Falkner, to continue

KB is motivated, which is better than politicians actively seeking to stop it

I recall seeing a post from an activist on here pretty much laughing the time lag is too short and Labour would kill it. Depressing but there are people pretty much willing that outcome

They are helle. The government aren't doing it.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labour-welcomes-government-review-equality-act-over-defining-sex-biological

LABOUR said today it welcomes government plans to review the Equality Act, potentially defining sex explicitly as “biological sex.” “Clarification is a good thing,” the party said

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/195562/the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-to-be-debated-by-mps/#:~:text=23%20of%20the%20Gender%20Recognition,a%20Gender%20Recognition%20Certificate'.%22

In its response to the petition, provided on 26 January 2023, the Government said: “Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified. Further clarification is not necessary.”

Because ladies and gents are being taken away.

How can you be bemused about that?