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!

And look at where Cass has taken us

No, I agree, that was probably a bridge too far.

In her interview, Gillian Keegan criticised the idea that "gender is a spectrum", which would suggest that she thinks she believes that "gender" is binary. Or feels that she needs to say this for some reason.

"Gender" seems to mean all kinds of things but so long as part of it is about masculinities and femininities, then it certainly looks like a spectrum, ie there are loads of different people with their own "gender thing". Like there is a spectrum of personalities (at least).

The people who say gender isn't a spectrum are those who are talking about sex being the same as "gender", or that they are so closely tied to each other that if you have a particular sex, then that goes with a matching "gender".

There's stuff in this thinking that has more in common with trans activism than a gender critical position. It's also a nod to her preferred side in the Culture Wars.

I don't think she has any grasp on this issue at all. So referring to Keegan's thinking might be an overstatement.

Agree GK sounded very muddled. And seemed to think a GRC means a man will have had his sexual organs removed.

Gillian Keegan and Starmer both think sone men are women.
Where are their critical thinking skills?

If it is once again so, that TW are NOT W, then should the Gender Recognition Act (GRA 2004) be repealed?

For those unfamiliar, the GRA grants those trans people who apply, and who succeeed, the right to change their birth certificate. That is from male to female, or from female to male.

If it is now decided, that all trans people remain what they were as stated as being at birth, either a boy/man or girl/woman, then what place does the gender recognition act now have? Should that legislation be repealed, and all who have obtained a different birth certificate, be reissued with their original birth certificates?

And what too of transgender MEN? Are they Men or Women. Presumably, they are WOMEN. If they are Women, and if they are now fully bearded, male chested, and surgically endowed with a functioning penis (PHALLOPLASTY), would you be happy for this 'woman' to be, naked or dressed, in a women's loo or changing space? -- Given that she is after all, still a woman, and so entitled to use those women's spaces.

www.dailymail.co.uk/video/femail/video-1638134/Video-31-year-old-trans-bodybuilder-undergoes-phalloplasty-surgery.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/fb-7509645/WHAT-PHALLOPLASTY.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

You haven’t been on here before, then.

Quite.

So what of what else I wrote?

What of Trans Men in Women's spaces?

Should the GRA 2004 be repealed?

Transmen are women and should therefore be accessing women's spaces and services, like rape refuges, prisons, etc.

In terms of toilets, etc, as they often pass better than transwomen, that's an argument for a third space.

Being female, many transmen understand that their presence might threaten women, and will use the male space. But if they don't want to do that, then a third space is the obvious option.

And yes, the GRA should be revealed. It's a nonsense piece of legislation that enshrines deceit into law.

It would have to be a third and fourth space though as trans men and trans women aren't going to want to share either.

"In terms of toilets, etc, as they often pass better than transwomen, that's an argument for a third space. "

Yes I suppose that's true. Often but not always. And there are transwomen who pass completely too.

So how about those transwomen, who have had surgery (vaginoplasty), and actually go completely undetected at work and socially due to surgery and hormones from a younger age?

What should be done about those, if they use women's spaces?

Would it be acceptable for that person to use a female toilet etc , if nobody knew, that she was actually a transwoman?

Should a "third space" and or a 4th, be exclusive for trans people?

Labour enacted the GRA. Are they likely to repeal it?

Would it be acceptable for that person to use a female toilet etc , if nobody knew, that she was actually a transwoman?

No of course it wouldn't be, but those males are more likely to get away with it with no one knowing. However, most of the males that claim they pass, don't.

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

We've been discussing this issue here in those terms for many years.

If they are getting away with it (using women's toilets) with nobody knowing, why does it matter?

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do absolutely completely bar an internal examination, uses a women's toilet and the other women there have no idea, then, why does it matter?

@24Jules

Here's an analogy for you. If someone drills a hole in the toilet cubicle I'm in, and peers at me, but I never know they could see me, do you think it would matter?

Also, your adherence to the ideological belief that some males are women is pretty clear. Males aren't "other women".

Spying on somebody in a private space isn't analogous at all. Obviously, you wouldn't be content with anyone spying on you in a cubicle, trans or not trans.

My assumption is that trans people use the toilet to relieve themselves, like most everybody else, not to spy on other people there.

Is it suggested that transwomen use the women's toilets rather than men's, especially to spy on or threaten women?

And as a matter of reality, many things happen in life, that had one been aware, one would have been upset. But never being aware, were never troubled.

Delete/ignore the word "other" then. Replace it with the women there who are not transwomen

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do, absolutely completely, bar an internal examination, uses a women's toilet, and the women there who are not transwomen have no idea, then, why does it matter?

It's more of a mouthful, but it doesn't alter the question.

If nobody is aware, how can anyone be upset?

Let's assume then, that ALL transpeople should only be allowed legally, to use their birth sex toilets.

How will a fully passable trans woman, be prevented from entering and using a women's toilet? Should all women be required on entry to present proof that they are women and not trans women? Or only trans women? And then how would the attendant know always, who to ask?

It seems to me that the only way, would be to prevent ANYBODY from ever transitioning.

Make transgender itself, an illegal act.

Or put a limit on the degree to which they could transition, so that none could ever pass. And then it would always be obvious who is trans and exclusion would always then be a simple matter of recognition.

And perhaps a visible tatoo for those who already pass, just so there can be no hiding and they too can't escape the net.

I have no adherence to any particular part of the debate. As noted by you and a previous poster. I'm new to this discussion. And since this was started about Bartlett quizing Keegan in an ongoing debate about trans issues, I joined in.

I'm asking not stating. I'm exploring the views and arguments.

It's an example of privacy being violated without my knowledge and as such is a perfectly valid analogy.

These points are all covered in depth elsewhere on this board and only tangentially related to this thread. It's very clear which side you're approaching this from.

It's very telling that you haven't engaged with the analogy I made to get you to think about privacy, dignity and consent and why it would matter that males are sneaking into women's spaces without women being aware, and instead have made up a load of random scenarios of your own.

These perfectly passing transwomen still give themselves away when they tie their unicorns up to the sinks.

@JanesLittleGirl

Considering the growing number of specific categories on PornHub of trans-identified men (and male chancers) filming (and live-streaming) themselves doing all sorts of unpleasant things in women-only spaces, I’d rather keep the spaces for females only. It’s bad enough worrying about hidden cameras in changing rooms and toilets without having to make things easier for voyeurs.

They don't pass. Never did. HTH.

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do, absolutely completely, bar an internal examination

That’s a big claim, and unevidenced.

Are we going to have laws that say, if a man 'passes' as a woman, he has the right to be in female only spaces?

That would mean that we are allowing men to be in spaces that are design to exclude them. The whole point of these spaces is that they are for women and girls, not for men.

The idea that its ok for men to use these spaces if they 'pass' for women, is not going to work. For a start, 'passing' is subjective at the best of times and once in a women only space, differences will be more apparent. Also, if any women sharing the space know its a man that automatically excludes him, doesnt it? A man cannot pass undetected and be a known man.