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?

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?

My educational background is shockingly poor. I got through my entire career at the local comp without ever lighting a Bunsen burner and although I don’t recall my GCSE grade off the top of my head, it definitely wasn’t high enough to qualify me to take an A level in the subject.

I do have some common sense though, and when people with lots and lots of scientific qualifications are saying scientific things, I’m going to believe them over people who were clearly skiving on the day everyone else learned that humans cannot change sex.

This is very true.
Nobody should be asked about their genitalia or lack thereof so we must assume that men have a penis and women do not
And as I type that last part I am both astonished and horrified that it needs to be said.

''You're denying our existence''

While denying women exist as a distinct group, and working to erase our existence in speech and in law.

To be honest I'm a bit hazy on handbags! Laundry and nappies I'm at least HND level, but never did the exams

This thread is a great repository for all the logical fails of gender ideology.

Another (when women want men out of their spaces) "What I do doesnt affect you, rights arent like pie!"

Now men have to stay out of women's spaces: "Its not fair, youre erasing us!"

Hmmm.... turns out that rights ARE like pie. And they wanted all of it.

I have recently had:

1. Claim : Trans people are the most vulnerable people in the world - no one would pretend to be trans.

I point out about Karen White

1. Response : Oh so you think all trans people are like that because of one pretender ?

It’s fascinating to watch. It’s like their brains can’t process that going from 1 to 2 removes part of their argument and that 2. Is ridiculous because no one has said this and they know it.

AKA Schrodinger's trans - simultaneously passes perfectly AND ALSO will get beaten up in the mens/hounded out of the womens.

WE ARE EVERYWHERE BUT YOU DONT KNOW
We are a tiny oppressed minority

Whereas I worry about your education.

sex refers to sexual reproduction and reproductive role whether you are a snail, a rose bush or a squirrel.

It’s defined according to whether an organism produces large or small gametes or both (has anyone on this thread said it’s defined by chromosomes?)

We define it because it has significant consequences.

Unlike snails, humans are gonochoric.

Human females are mammals and have evolved to carry a pregnancy for 9 months and breast feed.

The male role is limited to having sex.

Luckily women are humans and have all sorts of rights that enable them to tell men to F off.

As with every other organism and every organ, the reproductive system is subject to developmental disorders. It does not follow that a human with a DSD is a new sex or that women don’t need rights or that a man who has fathered children can be a woman because he has a ‘female brain’.

All people are safer going to single sex toilets that have door gaps. All people.

Mixed sex design is private.

Hopefully this judgement will lead to more toilets being designed for safety.

The privacy is what is more likely to stop people’s ‘existence’. The ones at greatest risk are the most vulnerable with invisible disabilities. And those who aren’t even aware they may be going to have a stroke, seizure or heart attack.

I see all your phds and raise you a cycling proficiency certificate and badge!

(I'll admit I have no biology qualifications. But even I know it's Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD) not intersex, and I know that even those with DSDs are still either male or female. There is no third sex!)

Let's all take a moment to reflect upon the fact that both Judith Butler and Sally Hines have PhDs.

No offence to anyone here who has a real PhD.

How do you know whether someone has "had the op" or not when deciding whether to let them into the women's changing rooms?

I don't have a PhD, meerly a degree, but I have to say i find the statement that biology isn't real quite baffling. It's the reason my blood is pumping around my body and that i'm alive. I'm sure the millions of people reling on it to get medical care would also agree?

Also, the op involves significant surgery to the urinary tract, has variable success, causes infertility and more or less prevents orgasm.

You can’t tie somebody’s rights to having such surgery.

I supervise PhDs

Are you not aware that sexual assault is often a crime of opportunity? It certainly was when I was assaulted in a unisex toilet space.

We have a winner!!!! 😁

Oooooh! 😅

The argument I'm seeing over and over, that I genuinely don't understand is "...particularly non binary people" tacked on at the end of a sentence about being erased,having their rights stripped away. I see this a lot from female NB people, what do they genuinely think they've lost?

They've lost the "most" rights, supposedly, but on reading it it looks like it confirms female NB people have had their rights around reproduction strengthened. Otherwise there were no special rights to being NB, fluid, questioning, GNC etc.The shades of grey were never enshrined in law, nobody thought they were but some people think they are the most affected.

Jane Fae was on Jeremy Vine's TV show this morning, running all the usual arguments and getting a lot of pandering, and came up with a new one:

Jane knows an old lady (trans) who would rather die than be admitted to a male hospital ward.

OLD LADIES WILL DIE 😱

Which is strange because mixed sex wards do exist, and we grumble about them, but I've never heard a woman say she'd rather die.

Christiane Nusslein Volhard has a Nobel prize in medicine, and she's a terf.

A Nobel = Mornington Crescent, game over. 😁

If your going to refrence the 1.7% of the world who is born intersex as an argument for transgender people
Then why not consider the 3.5% of the population born with genetic abnormalities as part of science? People born with a missing limb, babies with 7 toes on each foot? Why are we not changing the normal common science to portray people being born with two arms and two legs

Totally agree, and can boost your argument by saying: the percentage of the global population with DSDs (disorders of sexual development, which is the current term, rather than intersex) is even smaller than you quote - it’s actually 0.018.