Jon Sopel's new book

[southbiscay]

In Jon Sopel's new book ''Strangeland', he has a reasonably lengthy section on what he calls the trans debate. Overall it's well written and seems to largely understand the issue. He is extremely supportive of (ex colleague) Hannah Barnes and the Cass Review. I only had two issues - firstly the use of wrong sex pronouns for trans identified people. Asking 'where should she go?' evokes a different emotional response to asking 'where should he go?' (as expounded by Barracker in the 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' piece)

Secondly, he repeatedly says that he can't understand why, when trans identified people make up such a tiny percentage of the population, it is seemingly such a big issue, completely missing the fact that allowing men to be considered women has the potential to affect 51 percent of the population.

In the book he shows that he definitely has a good handle on issues - as you'd expect from someone of his journalistic credentials. He writes about the whole shitshow in Scotland with accuracy, giving Sturgeon very short shrift indeed.

I've found him to be a bit dismissive of this subject on the News Agents but in the book he is much more thorough.

But he seems to think that there exists an accommodation that will suit both women and trans activists. Despite his undoubted intelligence, he doesn't begin to say what that is. And, of course, that is because it doesn't exist.

Additionally, the answer to some men being at risk is not to move them into the women’s facilities, but to work out why they are at risk and how that can be reduced, without affecting women’s rights.

Instead of instructing women to be their human shield and allies, they could ask men to accompany them to the male facilities and fulfil this function. That would make a far greater social impact and truly 'broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man'.

Sick of the “oh it’s so complicated’ comment from intelligent people!
No it’s not- it’s very simple
Unless he’s looking for woke points
I despair sometimes and feel like giving up
It’s draining

On the News Agents he's generally nodding politely along to whatever Lewis TRA Goodall rants about

I experience this too.

I tried to watch the Will Farrell thing on Netflix but the discomfort caused by Will saying SHE for a bloke constantly was palpable & physical. Plus it hurt my head.

Clearly the man is lying. And he knows he is lying and yet he piously continues to lie & act like he's confused why people are so hateful & won't join in with all the lying.

I switched off very quickly.

Its not what i believe, im talking about the logic that allows people to conclude that men with gender should enter women only spaces - that the risk of rape is so rare that, on balance, it shouldnt have the attention it has.

Its all rubbish. For the most part, women dont see toilets and changing rooms as places they arent raped in, they are places where we can be in a state of undress without too much embarrassment. A mother can keep the door ajar and pee at the same time as keeping an eye on her children.

The reason why people are saying its a difficult balance is that TRA are using the idea that minorities are by definition more vulnerable than the majority, and women only spaces are being redefined as safe spaces.

Therefore TW, being vulnerable, need access to those safe spaces.

Their maths doesn't quite reach the fact, that even if single sex spaces only exist to avoid physical attacks, the absolute number of vulnerable women and girls is far, far greater than the number of vulnerable men with gender. And those vulnerable men can still be a danger to women and girls.

I suppose what im trying to say is that often male inclusion isnt a postion people support without thinking, its that their assumption are off.

Me too. I always wonder how a child knows he or she is “transgender” if it’s so complicated that a very smart person can’t explain it to another similarly smart adult.

Secondly, he repeatedly says that he can't understand why, when trans identified people make up such a tiny percentage of the population, it is seemingly such a big issue, completely missing the fact that allowing men to be considered women has the potential to affect 51 percent of the population.

I find it very frustrating when people don't get this. There are two answers to this. One is that, under self-ID, any man who says he's a woman is treated as a woman for all purposes. That means, not just a handful of men, but any man at all. Potentially all 30 million men (or however many there are) could choose to identify as women if they wanted. Chances are, most won't, but in giving the opportunity to each and every man, you no longer have a meaningful legal category called "women" with their own rights, spaces, activities etc.

Second, just one man can have a massive impact on a single-sex activity or space. Take Lia Thomas: when Thomas used the female changing rooms and paraded around with his dick out, that affected every single woman in those rooms. And when Thomas won women's swimming races, that affected all the women taking part in those races who no longer had a chance of first place.

If Sopel doesn't understand that, then I'm afraid he's a bit thick.

"I always wonder how a child knows he or she is “transgender” if it’s so complicated that a very smart person can’t explain it to another similarly smart adult".

Has anyone been able to provide a workable defintion of "gender" and "transgender" yet so we know what these concepts mean outside of any give individuals brain?

Don;t get me started on "transition" - what the fi=uck does "transition mean? Transition from what? From a "man who thinks he is male" to a "man who thinks he is female"?

none of it makes sense

Coming back to Sopel, and how you explain stuff to people who wilfully refuse to understand them, I wonder if the best answer to this question about "why does it matter when it involves so few people?" is to point out that it's just like allowing people to change their date of birth on their birth certificate.

If you allow people to legally change their sex, why not their age? After all, maybe only a few people would choose to do it, therefore it's fine, isn't it?

The point is the principle that you should not be able to enshrine a lie in law. It doesn't matter if only one person decided to change the date on their birth certificate, it would still be a fucking insane thing to do.

Earlier in the book, Sopel discusses the decision by the UK government to pass a law that declared Rwanda to be a safe country irrespective, pointing out the insanity of legislating in this way. I wonder if it's occurred to him to view the GRA through the same lens.

I think we need to give people more of understanding of safeguarding. Sex, as well as age are vitally important, as is always said here - no sacred castes.

I think the vulnerability of girls and young women transitioning may have an effect, but probably not for a few years.

But apparently some young children understand it and some adults including medical professionals, teachers, mental health practitioners and other people who come into contact with children go along with what these children say they are 🤷‍♀️