Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Help me to verbalise my feelings on the trans movement/new law

104 replies

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:16

I am very liberal and usually maintain a live and let live attitude. I don’t care how people choose to identify or live their lives. Gay, straight, trans, race, whatever - as long as you’re a decent person crack on.

However the whole issue with the trans thing is how they have slowly tried to infiltrate women’s spaces and rights. Live how you want to live but don’t try to change society for the majority. It began to feel like the wants and feelings of one trans woman trumped the comfort and safety of a bunch of women and I didn’t like that. So for that reason I support the new laws.

What I don’t understand, and I admit I’m not clued up on the language or in depth debates surrounding this, is why other people are no against this? People I know and have agreed with before entirely on political issues and whatnot are up in arms. They loathe JK Rowling, they think it’s disgraceful. Why are people so angry about trying to maintain single sex spaces? I have one particular friend who is really wound up about it and I know it’s going to come up in conversation. I feel ill equipped to put my point across succinctly because I just can’t understand the outrage at declaring women deserve privacy and respect.

Can anyone explain a little about the opposing view?

OP posts:
BellissimoGecko · 19/04/2025 13:59

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:36

This is what cant get my head around. Why are views so extreme by trans allies and activists? Can they genuinely not grasp that some people need or deserve single sex spaces - certain faiths for example or victims of abuse.

Or, you know, just women who want single sex spaces because they don’t want to change or be in a loo with men?

SwordOfOmens · 19/04/2025 14:00

Professor Robert Winston, the pioneer of fertility treatment and IVF, said: "I will say this categorically. You cannot change your sex. Your sex is there in every cell in the body. You have chromosomal sex, genetic sex, hormonal sex, all sorts of different types. Psychological sex and brain sex. We have unfortunately got very confused about this. Regrettably, we have got into this argument." The scientist who developed the medical treatments that allow infertile couples to have children knows a thing or two about hormones, genetics, and the differences between male and female bodies.

Some people - some of them scientists, some of them philosophers - argue that sex is not binary, but a "continuum" or "spectrum". Lots of people cite Anne Fausto-Sterling, a Professor of Biology and Gender Studies. She falsely claimed that 1.7% of the population is intersex, and that therefore sex was not binary.

But she started with the idea, and then tried to find evidence to justify it. She included conditions which clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome. These are conditions where someone is still obviously male or female, but they have an extra chromosome, or one of their chromosomes is not functional. Thsese are malfunctions that cause unforunate health conditions. They are not extra sexes, or intermediate states between male and female. She included late-onset adrenal hyperplasia, where a lack of a certain enzyme causes hormonal problems. In fact, her criteria were so wooly that a woman who lost an ovary or who had a hysterectomy would be counted as intersex!

In reality, conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population. A hundred times lower.

If you test the DNA of any random indivudal trans person, there's a 99.92% chance that they are not "intersex" or have some chromosomal abnormality. Over the past 30 years there has been loads of studies, and if there was a tendancy for trans people to have biological abnormalities compared to non trans people, that would have been discovered and been big news! People that identify as the opposite sex are no more or less likely to have one of these rare medical conditions. You could test one thousand trans women and the liklihood is that every single one would have male chromosomes, XY. In fact genuine intersex people have gotten angry and told trans people to stop bringing them into their arguments, because they have nothing in common.

The fact that there are a very small number of people that do have such abnormalities who are not trans does not mean there is a spectrum or continuum of sex. Even if the false claims were true, and it was the much bigger number of 1.7%. As professor Kathleen Stock points out, “hard cases are not a special fact about the categories of male and female,” and “difficulty about borderline cases is absolutely standard for biological categories”. Kathleen Stock is a philosopher, not a biologist, but her statement was based on gathering research from biologists, and it is a correct biological point.

There are people that are born without arms or legs, or with 6 fingers, or who have their heart on the right side of the body. Yet we can confidently say that human beings have 5 fingers on each hand, and that the heart is on the left side of the body. Human beings do not have a "spectrum" or a "continuum" of arms and legs - normally humans have 2 arms, 2 legs, and occasionally there's an abnormality.

Unlike sex, it is actually reasonable to argue that "race" (white, black, native american, etc) is a spectrum or a continuum. If someone has a black parent or a white parent, are they black, white or mixed race? Barack Obama identies as black despite having a white parent. Yet a white person identifing as black or asian is considered unacceptable.

And in fact, it is reasonable to argue that "species" (homo sapiens) is a spectrum. Long ago, all lions, tigers, panthers etc evolved from the "Proailurus". But as evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins likes to point out, animals don't just suddenly evolve from one specides into another overnight, there must be a continuous sequence of intermediates. So in the fossil record you might find animals that have traits that are somewhere inbetween Proailurus and a Lion. So deciding exactly where Proailurus ended and the fist lion began is tricky, there are edge cases.

And yet it is possible for biologists and zoologists to define what a modern-day lion is. Lions and tigers can mate with each other, and can produce fertile offspring, and yet they are considered seperate species because they each have their own subset of genes that they share within their species. There are certain traits that all lions have, that tigers do not.

By comparison, in Kathleen Stock's words, "the sex division is one of the most stable and predictable there is". It is easier to be certain about sex than it is about species!

Or, in Richard Dawkins's words, race and species are spectrums, but "sex is a true binary".
www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary

Race is a Spectrum. Sex is Pretty Damn Binary. | Richard Dawkins

First published in Areo Magazine, 5th January 2022.

https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 14:03

. Lots of people cite Anne Fausto-Sterling, a Professor of Biology and Gender Studies. She falsely claimed that 1.7% of the population is intersex, and that therefore sex was not binary

Was this the one that included women with PCOS as intersex?

Heylo · 19/04/2025 20:02

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 09:05

There is no credible evidence that trans women make women’s spaces less safe.

Apart from the female prisoners that were sexually assaulted by male prisoners in womens prison

Or the woman that was raped by a man on an NHS ward only for the hospital to lie to the police that the rape couldn't have happened because there was no man on the ward ( a lie they kept ip for a year until CCTV footage was discovered)

Or the rape survivors at ERCC who expected a female counsellor but instead got a man who questioned them about whether they orgasmed during their rape

Edited

Was that reported in the press (male questioning SA victims if they orgasmed during rape). Someone needs to go to jail for asking that question.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 19/04/2025 20:07

CosyTaupeShark · 19/04/2025 11:10

Sorry just had to pop back in and say a few things then I’m actually going to leave because I find the repetitive hive mind arguments on here infuriating.
Firstly, don’t use accessibility as a reason for closed mindedness. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it’s obvious that ‘people with learning difficulties, people for whom English is not their first language, people who simply struggle to read, and many more people for whatever reason’ can have clear, supportive language while respecting the reality that not every patient fits a specific definition. Stop weaponising other marginalised identities.

Also the ‘you left because you lost!’ rhetoric is a really easy one. I could stay here all day- as I’ve shown, I have thought about this for years and have spend many years grappling with the issue myself coming to terms with my own SA. If you want to put that feather in your hat, sure, but it’s not what’s happening here.

So now showing concern for the needs of people whose English is limited is "weaponising other marginalised identities". Forgive me for finding it hard to respect such a disrespectful assumption.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:18

Heylo · 19/04/2025 20:02

Was that reported in the press (male questioning SA victims if they orgasmed during rape). Someone needs to go to jail for asking that question.

Yes.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:22

The man at ERCC also said this about raped women who wanted female only counselling

“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 20:29

CosyTaupeShark · 19/04/2025 11:10

Sorry just had to pop back in and say a few things then I’m actually going to leave because I find the repetitive hive mind arguments on here infuriating.
Firstly, don’t use accessibility as a reason for closed mindedness. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it’s obvious that ‘people with learning difficulties, people for whom English is not their first language, people who simply struggle to read, and many more people for whatever reason’ can have clear, supportive language while respecting the reality that not every patient fits a specific definition. Stop weaponising other marginalised identities.

Also the ‘you left because you lost!’ rhetoric is a really easy one. I could stay here all day- as I’ve shown, I have thought about this for years and have spend many years grappling with the issue myself coming to terms with my own SA. If you want to put that feather in your hat, sure, but it’s not what’s happening here.

Wanting clear language is not “closed minded”. Wanting single sex spaces is not “closed minded”. You are certainly not the only SA survivor on this thread, so how about you stop lecturing other SA survivors how they should feel about their own boundaries around men. Trans “women” are men. In reality and in law. It’s not up to you how I see them.

And of course you are leaving now you’ve said your little platitudes. The utter horror of being disagreed with by people who make coherent arguments about their own rights!

FleurDeFleur · 19/04/2025 20:32

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:36

This is what cant get my head around. Why are views so extreme by trans allies and activists? Can they genuinely not grasp that some people need or deserve single sex spaces - certain faiths for example or victims of abuse.

Apparently not
.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/04/2025 20:45

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 20:29

Wanting clear language is not “closed minded”. Wanting single sex spaces is not “closed minded”. You are certainly not the only SA survivor on this thread, so how about you stop lecturing other SA survivors how they should feel about their own boundaries around men. Trans “women” are men. In reality and in law. It’s not up to you how I see them.

And of course you are leaving now you’ve said your little platitudes. The utter horror of being disagreed with by people who make coherent arguments about their own rights!

The PP seems not to have realised that her male abuser could 'discover' his inner woman at any moment. Just because it wasn't a trans woman that assaulted her doesn't mean it won't be a trans woman in the dock demanding she /her pronouns and references to 'her' penis. It is an option available to all men, not just nice ones, not just gay ones, not just small ones, not just pretty ones. The big, strong, hairy arsed, ugly, abusive ones can decide that they are really women too.

AcquadiP · 19/04/2025 20:48

I see the situation as being about outrageous (mostly) male entitlement. The trans movement hijacked the term (biological) "women" and labelled us "cis" implying "cis" women were a subgroup of women which now included trans women and any male who now self ID as a woman. I don't recall "cis" women giving their permission to this new definition of womanhood nor to sharing toilets, changing rooms, refuges etc. It was simply assumed we'd go along with "Barbera" in a frock with a beard and a cock sharing the ladies' loos as an example. Any talk of biological sex was immediately closed down with cries of "transphobic." I'm like you, I'm all for live and let live but not when it comes to what have always been single sex spaces. I'm delighted with the SC ruling, it's a victory for commonsense. Trans women and those who self ID as women should have campaigned for their own spaces instead of trying to bully women into sharing theirs. Frankly, I think you're brave even considering discussing this subject since there seems to be a lot of hysteria around it.🙉

Micaela64 · 19/04/2025 20:55

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:16

I am very liberal and usually maintain a live and let live attitude. I don’t care how people choose to identify or live their lives. Gay, straight, trans, race, whatever - as long as you’re a decent person crack on.

However the whole issue with the trans thing is how they have slowly tried to infiltrate women’s spaces and rights. Live how you want to live but don’t try to change society for the majority. It began to feel like the wants and feelings of one trans woman trumped the comfort and safety of a bunch of women and I didn’t like that. So for that reason I support the new laws.

What I don’t understand, and I admit I’m not clued up on the language or in depth debates surrounding this, is why other people are no against this? People I know and have agreed with before entirely on political issues and whatnot are up in arms. They loathe JK Rowling, they think it’s disgraceful. Why are people so angry about trying to maintain single sex spaces? I have one particular friend who is really wound up about it and I know it’s going to come up in conversation. I feel ill equipped to put my point across succinctly because I just can’t understand the outrage at declaring women deserve privacy and respect.

Can anyone explain a little about the opposing view?

Because trans people are a tiny minority of people and it's largely a non issue for most people

Greyskybluesky · 19/04/2025 20:56

You mean testeria @AcquadiP 😉

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 21:00

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/04/2025 20:45

The PP seems not to have realised that her male abuser could 'discover' his inner woman at any moment. Just because it wasn't a trans woman that assaulted her doesn't mean it won't be a trans woman in the dock demanding she /her pronouns and references to 'her' penis. It is an option available to all men, not just nice ones, not just gay ones, not just small ones, not just pretty ones. The big, strong, hairy arsed, ugly, abusive ones can decide that they are really women too.

Exactly.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:01

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 08:34

The opposing view is largely that if you don't believe that transwomen are women then you are a far right bigoted terf who deserves to die in a grease fire.

That's about the size of it.

They argue so hard and so viciously, OP, because they are defending an absurdity that they know, on some level, is wrong.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 22:03

Nobody has ever made any kind of convincing argument why I should believe it. I just find it absurd.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:04

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:50

All women deserve single sex spaces. But obviously you are going to get some (the allies) who don’t seem at all perturbed by it and actually think trans women have the right to be in women’s toilets and changing rooms.

Yes. Some people focus entirely on the wants and needs of males, and are unable to grasp that women are equally important.

They also have swallowed a narrative that says transwomen are vulnerable, and de facto harmless.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:05

Transwomen don't want to share with other men, so women have to put up with sharing with men.

Ilovetowander · 19/04/2025 22:10

People are either male/men or female/women this cannot be changed, people use the toilets and other facitlites accordingly - that is quite simple, there is no need to complicate the issue.

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:23

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:18

Yes.

I’m familiar with the case with the hideous CEO being the ‘invisible hand’ behind Roz’ sacking.

I didn’t know about this. I don’t think that Edinburgh rape crisis centre should still be running if that question was asked. That has to be a safeguarding breach.

OhcantthInkofaname · 19/04/2025 22:26

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 08:34

The opposing view is largely that if you don't believe that transwomen are women then you are a far right bigoted terf who deserves to die in a grease fire.

Yes that's exactly what the opposing view was/is! UK ruling makes our feelings valid.

I was accosted for having a question/answer forum for maturing girls and we stated that periods were a normal part of womanhood. They suggested burning at the stake for me and my co-founder.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:27

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:23

I’m familiar with the case with the hideous CEO being the ‘invisible hand’ behind Roz’ sacking.

I didn’t know about this. I don’t think that Edinburgh rape crisis centre should still be running if that question was asked. That has to be a safeguarding breach.

It was the hideous CEO who asked the question

Sweetbeansandmochi · 19/04/2025 22:30

This came up so briefly the other day and it was clear there was a split of opinion.

I tried to keep it short and to the heart of it - for me the ruling was about the meaning of words. Do we have a common understanding of what we mean. As the word woman has been being changed with out due process. This ruling clarified it.

And for me it is very important because once meanings of words can be changed without a process we can find ourselves in some very difficult situations very quickly.

(and of course I mean ones which carry a legal definition not just normal language development).

BUT for one of the people in the conversation - she looked like she had steam coming out of her ears. And it is the anger and emotionalism that makes it so hard to discuss and puts me off having these conversations.

I really think they can’t see what is at risk of being lost my conceding the term woman to include ‘women with penises’ and therefore eradicating women from legal existence.

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:31

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:27

It was the hideous CEO who asked the question

Sorry to sound dim but I must clarify this. That CEO asked if she orgasmed?

I hadn’t read that in any newspaper. I’m livid. He surely must be breaking some kind of law by asking that. Was he ever questioned about that?

what a sick twisted bastard. That poor woman to be traumatised over and over again.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:34

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:31

Sorry to sound dim but I must clarify this. That CEO asked if she orgasmed?

I hadn’t read that in any newspaper. I’m livid. He surely must be breaking some kind of law by asking that. Was he ever questioned about that?

what a sick twisted bastard. That poor woman to be traumatised over and over again.

Yes