Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

[heldinadream]

Today prog R4 now - Emma holding GK to account!
16/05/24 8.45 been going on about 10 minutes really worth listening to!

Here's a fairly current thread about exactly that issue

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5065431-are-you-voting-in-the-next-general-election-purely-on-the-transgender-issue

The Farms will have receipts of this behaviour too.

Sorry, in my innocence/ignorance of most matters porn, I have no idea what that even means. Lol.

It depends on a different things in different areas.

For the "single issue" voters, there's Reform UK, SDP, Party of Women and George Galloway's party. For most other voters, the Tories are not trusted on this or any issue.

Looked at that thread. Began about trans vs women's rights, and is currently about illegal imigrants. Lol. Drifting somewhat.

But it's clear, that if Sunak wants more votes, his lackys should be reading that thread, and honing their rhetoric (lies) accordingly. Lol.

And maybe they are doing exactly that.

Yes there are other parties. But they will not gain power. Hence vote wasted. Not sure if it matters though, as none of them have answers worth hearing on any subject.

I think Labour's landslide win, will be on a low turn out, due to voter apathy.

It's not a porn site, it's a forum where they archive stuff that people post on the internet. Sometimes for the lolz (the infamous LOLcows), sometimes because they are documenting crime (they recently helped identify a particularly nasty animal abuser who was then convicted). Some people hate it, some people don't care about it, some people like it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4814090-antipodean-fruit-growers-3-is-the-kiwi-a-dodo-or-a-phoenix

???? So much stuff I have never heard of. Lol.

Am I missing much?

Is it like that old ad', no ft, no comment? Lol.

Well considering that you think all TW just want to pee, I'm wondering if you have missed this.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1815090/

There used to be a Twitter account called Nig Heke that collected examples of trans-identified men filming themselves in women’s-only spaces doing the sorts things described further up the thread. The account was report bombed frequently by TRAs but kept coming back in various guises. The Nig Heke account was a bit like Mary Cate Delvey’s Twitter project of ‘listening to Trans Women in their own words'.

The videos were got from social media, only fans, Twitter (pre Musk’s crackdown), Reddit and pornhub.

The men were doing revolting things and brain bleach was required after seeing any of them.

Labour won under Tony Blair with no mention of what they were actualky going to do in office. Just a half dozen bland pledges.

You’re wrong - no surprise. Here’s the Labour Party manifesto from 1997. No wonder Labour won on a landslide 179 seats.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml

RainWithSunnySpells
Autogynephilia in women. 2009.
"By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of "frequent" arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19591032/

borntobequiet
I wasn't wrong at all. I was trying to make the point (I made it badly then it seems), that Labour did not say they would enact a gender recognition act in 2004. It wasn't in either the 2001 or 2004 manifestos. That's because it came down from on high. The EU. Blair was happy to oblige, and Labour have not changed their minds under subsequent leadership. In fact they've doubled down. Labour are clearly broadly still EUphile, wouldn't cross the European Court of Human Rights on this, and have no intention of repealing the GRA. They may well modify it though. In doing so, they will not make trans rights weaker. But, with a huge landslide, they may well strengthen trans rights, and quite possibly/probably overturn any recent tory legislstion regarding trans, that the torys were able to pass into law before being kicked out in October or November this year; -- as they most definitely will be.

Labour did not say they would enact a gender recognition act in 2004.

Of course they didn’t, because everyone would have thought they were mad.

Gender ideology is a very recent social infection, deliberately pushed by ideologues with a variety of (mostly nefarious) reasons.

Why did you miss out this bit from the abstract?

'Autogynephilia, an erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, has been described as a sexual interest of some male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs); the term has not been applied to natal women. To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis.'

This is also not comparing like with like. A man being turned on by the idea of himself as woman (a fantasy, usually based on sexist stereotypes, ideas of forced feminisation, sissy porn etc.) is not in any way the same as a woman being turned on by her actual real female body (having sexy thoughts while having actual female body about that actual female body). I would love to see the questions on that questionnaire.

The female version is Autoandrophilia.

I wonder how many questionnaires have been sent to men asking them about their 'Autoandrophilia'?

The raging agp debate proves nothing either way. It's a theory, with insufficient proof to back it up. And are trans men driven by their version of AGP too? I confess, I don't know how much it matters. If trans woman has vaginoplasty, and gets aroused internally, does it matter? It doesn't matter to me, that I know. I couldn't care less.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934690

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mvQjpu7iFnqQ47Lbp/autogynephilia-discourse-is-so-absurdly-bad-on-all-sides

Nobody has explained exactly what causes gender dysphoria have they? It simply isn't understood. Where is the proof that it's all due to AGP? Trans like people have existed throughout human history in all cultures and societies. Some embraced and some rejected. The point is they still exist, and can't be erradicated.

Nobody here supported my suggestion of making transgender transitioning illegal.

So the argument is only really about how everybody gets along it seems to me. And given how younger generations particularly, accept a huge variety of gender expressions (most of which I don't understand at all but they seem to), I think people will, like it or not, have to accept that trans rights are here to stay.

We are a democracy. Majorities prevail. Maybe all this will become a major issue in the coming general election. If so we might get a clearer picture of what the majority of people find acceptable and what they don't.

But this is informative I think.

"Britons do not have blanket stances on trans issues"

"Few Britons have blanket views on trans rights one way or the other - most people have permissive views in some areas but not in others"
^yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1^

A transwoman is still and always will be a male person.

If you are going to assert the following, you need to define 'trans' because Stone Age people were not making bath tub oestrogen and having vaginoplasty and phalloplasty operations. Cave paintings have not given us enough insight into the thoughts of the people who made them for us to conclude that 'trans' was a concept that they had come up with and understood. So what exactly do you mean and what is your (high quality) evidence?

'Trans like people have existed throughout human history in all cultures and societies. Some embraced and some rejected. The point is they still exist, and can't be erradicated.'

We are a democracy. Majorities prevail. Maybe all this will become a major issue in the coming general election. If so we might get a clearer picture of what the majority of people find acceptable and what they don't.

Safeguarding prevails.

Men cannot change sex and women and girls need and want sex segregated spaces for their saftey and dignity.

It doesn't matter what the major issues of an election are, safeguarding provails.

As to gender expression, it felt more free before 'Gender Identity Ideology' reared its ugly head. Back when you could genderbend and it was just clothes and make-up. Glam, the New Romantics, Hair Metal, Bowie, Annie Lennox etc.

And societies evolve. They are fluid. What went before is past. This is now. Gay was a mental illness until recently. 1990. Now there is even scientific evidence in support of homosexuality. "2008 Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex" "2017 Biochemical evidence to support this effect was confirmed --" .

Nobody sensible now doubts that gay is biologically based, and not a choice or an ideology. That may yet be proven to be the case for trans people too. Or it may not.

I don't know, and nobody here knows, the exact cause of why trans people exist, and have existed for thousands of years. And since we evolved, and were not created, must have existed in some form, for far longer than just a few thousands of years. To suggest that it's recent, is not sensible either. Cave people didn't understand many things. Nor did those of 1900. Estrogen wasn't even isolated until 1929. So what?

Transgender history
Accounts of transgender people (including non-binary and third gender people) have been identified going back to ancient times in cultures worldwide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenderhistory

Hijra 4000 years ago.
https://reclamationmagazine.com/2020/06/29/hijras-the-age-old-transgender-community-in-south-asian-culture/

Of course modern societies exploit modern discoveries and explanations. Research into trans people's brains, still in it's infancy, may prove you right. Or it may prove you wrong. It's ongoing research. A lack of results, doesn't explain trans one way or the other.

Meanwhile, trans people exist, unexplained or not, and this being a democracy, what rights they have or lose, will be decided by voting. Of course safe spaces are important. Nobody sensible says it isn't important. Even trans people agree as I understand it.

A definition of something may remain fixed for millenia. And then it may change. It doesn't upset me one way or the other, if trans women are called women or not. A rose is a rose and all that. They will still exist no matter what label they carry, and increasingly society is, broadly happy to accomodate them; -- because in our democracy, that appears to be what the majority support.

That may yet change of course. But on the evidence so far, the incoming Labour government isn't going to reduce trans rights. They are more likely to maintain them or even stengthen them.

Phisically, when born, a trans women is a male. A trans man is a female. Logically yes. Depending on exactly what constitutes the definition of male/female, I don't see why there should be an argument about that.

The degree to which it's accepted, that surgery changes the equation, is conentious.

This thread, started about Keegan arguing with Barnett, that having full reassignment surgery makes Keegan happy to call a trans woman a woman, and a trans man a man.

But gender seems to be the big issue. Does gender exist, what ecactly is it, and is there a biological basis for it? Simply calling it an ideology doesn't explain it and doesn't solve any problems. Esp's since ideologirs of various kinds habe persisted for millenia.

What are the oldest ideologies? Religions? I don't see those disappearing anytime soon.

Societies do change. Women point out the harms of gender and that safeguarding children counts.

And we see political change, slowly but it’s there.

"Time to Move Beyond "Gender Is Socially Constructed"
Contradictions of sex and gender"

"Sex is the biological apparatus.

The construction of gender identity is a psychological process. (It is also a biological process; all psychological processes are biological processes—but not all biological processes are psychological processes.) "

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/old-school-parenting-modern-day-families/201907/time-move-beyond-gender-is-socially-constructed

EasternStandard

Yes. Labour made a HUGE change regarding trans under Blair. And short of ww3, Starmer will continue in the same direction. I see no evidence of a reversal from the basic position of trans transitioning and rights. Self certification or id or whatever it's called, isn't entirely dead either.

Slow is sometimes so slow, that it's static. Meanwhile, what was temporary, becomes permanent for a long time, and impossible to reverse.

Yes the GRA is the reason we have these harmful outcomes for women and children.

Labour can certainly own that very poor legislation.

I don’t think it’s completely robust although Labour will defend it

Huge amount discussed about how men and trans women are a danger to women.

Meanwhile.

Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-69026069

"Woman who pretended to be man to sexually assault teenager ‘put victim through hell’"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/georgia-bilham-sentencing-cheshire-chester-court-b2395222.html

Of course, a minority, some men, and some trans people are dangerous and criminal, and assualt both women and men physically and sexually. But what are the reliable and proven statistics? Aside from the very few well known cases, of trans attacking/raping women, for example Adam Binnie Bryson, --

Can someone point me to reliable proven numbers of women being attacked by trans men or women, in a woman's safe space? How many offences? How many proven? How many convicted?

Where can I find those numbers?

'Phisically, when born, a trans women is a male. A trans man is a female.'

They remain so, no matter what cross-sex hormones they take and no matter what surgery they have. Accepting the reality that peole can identify how they like, but mammals (including human beings) cannot change sex is essential, because sometimes sex matters and we have to understand reality when making laws or policy where sex is an important factor.

A simple example would be working out who the NHS should give PSA (prostate) tests to. There is no point in sending anyone who is female (including transmen) for a PSA test as that would just be a waste of money. Males of the right age range should all be tested though, this of course includes transwomen who are male and still have their prostate as it is not removed during vaginoplasty. It would not be good to miss out these people from PSA tests as early detection of prostate cancer is an imporant factor regarding survival rates.

Regarding the history of Transgender people, it appears that the Trans Umbrella has pulled under it anyone who doesn't fit their idea of 'Cis people' and called them 'Trans'. It wasn't that long ago that Transvestites were distinct from Transexuals, but these are also in the overarching group of 'Trans' along with eunachs, effeminate gay men, butch lesbians, anyone who ever wondered if they would be happier as the opposite sex and so on. I guess the historical Skoptsy cult in Russia and Castrati (Castrato) singers have now been dragged under the umbrella too. Joan of Ark has, so why not them. Yay for Historical revisionism!

I can remember learning about ancient China and how there was foot-binding (horrible thing done to female children) and eunachs (horrible thing done to males) and how thankfully these were not done now. Who knew then that 'eunach identity' would be added to WPATH's SOC8 and that orchidectomy would be argued for as progressive?

Look how the 'Eunach Maker' has been treated (jailed) compared to people asking for the same thing but with an ideology attached.

" we have to understand reality when making laws or policy where sex is an important factor."

Until people form a different opinion, as many have done.

And then the "have to"s and "essential"s you think important, cease to be important to those people who don't think so.

In a democracy, the majority view will prevail; like it/accept, or not.

Perhaps we'll know soon with a Labour manifesto, or after October/November, when Labour are HMG.

A vote on who can access women’s spaces sounds a good idea to me