Some strange contradictory arguments from the TRA side

[transdimensional]

Claim 1: That it's unfair for TW to go in men's toilets because they're less safe there.

It's probably true that they're less safe there, but how does the conclusion follow? What about a gender-nonconforming male who identifies as a man (not as a woman)? He would still have to go into the gents' even if admission to toilets was on the basis of gender identity. Should he also go to the ladies' to be safe? What about various other vulnerable groups? Young boys, elderly men who may be frail without being disabled, or ethnic minority males in an area where a white racist movement is strong - maybe they would all be safer in the ladies'? But it doesn't mean that's the answer!

Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not.
This implies that the ladies' toilet is no safer than the gents', and therefore it completely contradicts the first point!

Claim 3: That having rules about who can and can't enter the toilets will lead to a surge in TM and others being wrongly accused of being in the wrong toilets.

But even under the EHRC's and Scottish government's understanding of the law, there were theoretical limitations on who could enter which toilets (in theory you would have needed a GRC). So there have always been rules about who can enter. Does anyone recall a huge problem of false accusations before 2010 or before 2004? If not, why should it start now?

It's probably true that they're less safe there

Says who? How many transwomen have been assaulted in male facilities in the UK? Why is anyone accepting that transwomen aren’t safe in the men’s loos?

Sorry - that came over as far more aggressive than intended.

Gender ideology is built on a pack of lies and circular arguments.

What is a woman?

• anyone who says they're a woman.

So a woman is anyone?

• anyone who says they're a woman

So a woman is anyone who says they're a woman? So what are they saying they are exactly?

They're saying they're anyone who says they are anyone who says they are anyone who.......

^ I didn't type those bullet point thingies in they just appeared!

Claim: TW have been using women's toilets since forever and women have never noticed because TW pass so well and 100% look like women, no woman in the women's toilets has ever batted an eyelid at a TW being there.

After the ruling: TW are going to be hounded out of women's toilets if they try to enter

Questions: If TW pass so well that no one has ever noticed before, why wouldn't they continue to do so? What's changed? If TW were so convincing presenting as women before last Wednesday, why aren't they just as convincing now? Why are TW suddenly going to get hounded out if they pass as well as they think they always did? Why all the panic and hand wringing?

Another ridiculous claim is that of the introduction of genital inspections and how this will be degrading for both women and transwomen, with the added bonus thrown in by some that it will be perverted men tasked with undertaking the inspections. James O’Brien was nodding sagely at this claim last week.

I can’t get my head around the degree to which people take leave of their senses in entertaining these arguments and/or not dismissing them instantly.

Another ridiculous claim is that of the introduction of genital inspections and how this will be degrading for both women and transwomen..

Also doesn’t make sense when the argument was that some women have a penis, her penis, etc etc

Muppets.

Some contradictions I’ve been struggling with re toilets:

I know a lot of transmen don’t ‘pass’ that convincingly but some do and I think there is validity to the suggestion that men could claim to be transmen now instead of transwomen to access female toilets. However, the added benefit other than prisons, sports, refuges etc being single sex now (which is huge!) is that at least actual penises can now unambiguously be treated as flashers/predators rather than the WiSpa situation so overall, the situation has definitely hugely improved.

I also worry about where transmen who do ‘pass’ and the effect of the urinary leash on these woman. To not have access to male toilets, and then also female toilets, seems sketchy in terms of equality as not everywhere will have third spaces. Even carrying id in those situations, which I’m not sure is a route that would be desirable, wouldn’t help as often it wouldn’t list their actual sex. I know it’s a really small number of women that would be affected by this but still feels inequitable.

To add another claim to your list:

Ive seen people saying that third spaces would be outing but if everyone who wants single sex spaces to instead reflect
gender identity also used these spaces, how would trans people be outed?

@EweSurname re. Your concerns "I also worry about where transmen who do ‘pass’ and the effect of the urinary leash on these woman. To not have access to male toilets, and then also female toilets, seems sketchy in terms of equality as not everywhere will have third spaces. Even carrying id in those situations, which I’m not sure is a route that would be desirable, wouldn’t help as often it wouldn’t list their actual sex. I know it’s a really small number of women that would be affected by this but still feels inequitable."

Not sure about this one. Rather than third spaces that do not exist there are a lot more unisex individual toilets nowadays, which would not be 'outing' for a transman or transwoman to use. These may not be in every location but these are adults who can plan and don't (presumably) need access to a toilet instantly or even that frequently when out. Many disabled people need to plan in this way and have far less options. Those have my sympathy and I wonder how they feel about talk of third spaces because of 'passing' trans people needing a toilet option when do many venues do not have a disabled facility.

It would be embarrassing to a transman or transwoman who think they pass to be not challenged when using the facilities of their natal sex. That may be a big fear. As a pp stated it's a big step forward to be able to challenge a voyeur or flasher in the toilets (someone whose behaviour is off) rather than have to worry it's transphobic to mention concerns because the male in the changing rooms leering or showing their penis may be trans.

You are right. Every one of their claims crumbles to dust at the slightest examination.

I've just seen they plan on banning Labour MPs from Pride.
This is great on two levels: firstly, how dare you speak for the rest of the Pride community. Secondly, I hope by making Labour MPs one of their new targets, they will alienate a currently captured institution. Wooohooo!

Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake so the saying goes.

They are undoing all their significant gains by the increasingly unhinged behaviour and those marches of deranged looking people. The vast majority will be looking at this carry on and be relieved at the judgment.

"Gender ideology is built on a pack of lies and circular arguments."
- Circumfrences

I'm always baffled that a truly concerning number of people still think that xx to equal a woman and xy to equal a man is an exclusive default, and then go on to to erroneously cling to it as though it were scientific fact.

I don't know your educational background, but at my school we learned about intersex and chromosomal variation not being tied exclusively to pubescent development in Biology when we were around 14. It was pretty fundamental science, to be honest.

So, when you - and others like you - make statements like this I have to ask... how basic is your science, exactly?

"Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not."
- Transdimensional

It's true that dangerous males will do precisely that, but the logical fallacy that this means women who were born as physical - physical, not biological (see intersex and chromosomal variation) - males will automatically present a risk.

As you rightly assert, dangerous men are not going to be deterred by a door bearing a sign of a person in a dress, but let's forego the bathroom entirely. If men intend to be predatory they need not use a woman's bathroom; they simply get a job in law enforcement, or work as a youth volunteer at a local church, or be your boss.

Let's be quite clear. This HC ruling has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women; you allowed yourselves to be led by bigots into alienating and scapegoating a vulnerable minority group who have done nothing to you and whose suffering you have neither the inclination or education to understand.

It's a threat to the safety, dignity and identity of transwomen to have to use men's spaces.

It's zero threat to the safety, dignity and identity of women to have to share their spaces with men.

Trans rights don't impact on women's rights in any way whatsoever.

Women's rights are hateful and anyone who stands up for them is a transphobic bigot.

Gender is just a social construct.

Gender is far more important than any material reality.

Are these your own views? (No quotes used)

I read it that deffo is putting together their contradictory views.

This is the oddest one for me. Trans "rights" quite clearly do impact on women's rights and it's impossible to have a productive discussion on this issue if one side of the debate refuses to acknowledge it's even an issue at all.

Funny as I find some of these contradictions it is stifling to debate and the result of no debate is we have to come down on either black or white ie self ID or "biological sex only". It looked like self ID for a while but thankfully common sense seems to have prevailed.

@MordantCarnival - for clarity did you study Biology after 14?

"Gender ideology is built on a pack of lies and circular arguments."
- Circumfrences
I'm always baffled that a truly concerning number of people still think that xx to equal a woman and xy to equal a man is an exclusive default, and then go on to to erroneously cling to it as though it were scientific fact.
I don't know your educational background, but at my school we learned about intersex and chromosomal variation not being tied exclusively to pubescent development in Biology when we were around 14. It was pretty fundamental science, to be honest.
So, when you - and others like you - make statements like this I have to ask... how basic is your science, exactly?

Geeez, are you still trotting out the intersex argument? Have you paid no attention?

Yes, women asserting their rights diminishes trans rights but somehow this isn't true the other way round, supposedly.

It’s essentially the “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine too” theory writ large.

So, when you - and others like you - make statements like this I have to ask... how basic is your science, exactly?

PhD level. Yours?

The contradictory attitude towards medical treatment for adults and children is the one that stands out for me.

A man who makes no changes to his body should be accepted as a woman if he claims to be a transwoman. "Some women have penises, you bigots."

The same people claim that children should be medicated, sterilised and mutilated if they claim to be 'trans'.

Oooh, I love a bit of education top trumps in the morning.
Throwing my PhD onto the table too.