Is "trans" back to original definition?

[GoldenGate]

Following the SC ruling and the predictable trans dummy throwing, it has become clear most moaning and tantrums are not being seen from transvestites, crossdressers, weekend wendys. The sort who were cheering for self id about 5 years ago. Given the ruling was specifically about the GRA and the certificate its perhaps easy to see why its those medically transitioned who are mainly getting airtime, those originally considered such a small and harmless minority. Those who even resemble women at least on first sight. Obviously they are as much men behind the feminised faces as any other man, but interesting how the focus has shifted back to being "mean" to the cohort originally intended to benefit from the GRA. The ball is squarely back in their court to carve out realistic rights that don't conflict with those of other groups.

Not suggesting the crossdressers have gone away, just going under the radar as they did before we stopped shaming their practices as openly.

I wouldn't necessarily say back to original definition.
I see it as back to original strategy: show them the nice, acceptable, faces of trans. Wedge the door open for all the other men to come in once the women start fawning over "the poor dears" again.

I think a lot of people are overestimating the reach of the ruling.

The ruling was that the definition of a woman in the equality act is based on biology. It has nothing to do with what the definition of trans is, or disproving gender idiology.

"The ball is squarely back in their court to carve out realistic rights that don't conflict with those of other groups."

I think that's the problem, really. They don't care about being realistic, and less so about not conflicting with others.

I don’t think we need the ruling or the Equality Act to disprove gender ideology. It’s demonstrably nonsense all by itself.

Is there even a definition of trans anymore?

I've certainly been struggling to identify any definition in many of the TRA & co reactions to the judgment.

I would say the opposite, all the commentators I've seen on TV and in media moaning about it have been the clearly heterosexual males (AGPs) with their deep voices and male privilege.

I think they are the performative type, those that enjoy being called women even though they haven't put much effort into it.

There never was one definition. Even less so now. Anyone is trans who says so. It doesn't mean anything, which is one reason they don't know how to react to what's happening: because they don't have a firm foundation on which to build anything solid.

You are absolutely right.

I have no idea why the men in dresses are urinating all over the place when the judge was only talking about women...

Following the SC ruling and the predictable trans dummy throwing, it has become clear most moaning and tantrums are not being seen from transvestites, crossdressers, weekend wendys.

It's worth noting that transvestites no longer come under the trans umbrella according to Stonewall.

Up until 24th June last year (2024) Stonewall had crossdressers in its list of transgender categories. As from that date, they are not included.

I actuallly think that this much talked about original, "small group of 'genuine' transsexuals" were not any different in profile to many of those claiming trans identities today. It was overwhelmingly men, for a start, sharing the same sorts of profiles as they do now; namely AGP's and homosexuals.

I recall watching documentaries back in the 1970s about such men.......and that was certainly the case......and not too long ago ( maybe still available) Netflix produced an excellent documentary 'Regretters' about two men who transitioned long before the recent transgender craze, and who were now detransitioning decades later. It is well worth a watch, if still available ( A Swedish production)

One, who was amongst the very first to have the 'full' surgery - back in the 1960's ( a feminine gay man in a culture in which homosexuality was still illegal); and the second was a classic autogynephile( who loved women, but they didn't love him back, so he decided he was going to " become a woman" himself). He had a violent and abusive father - who had provided a very negative male role model that he wanted to reject. Both had gone so far as to have the 'full' surgery...and both distinctly recalled the shock of realisation of what they had done on waking up after the operation.

it was only years later that they finally realised that they were not really women at all

And yet some men who started off cross dressing as children, went all the way to having the 'full surgery' ( Debbie Hayton, for example). Having surgery is the end point and culmination of autogynephillic obsession for many... and not the evidence of being 'true trans' as we're often led to believe.

Of course, then comes the question of where the line lies between crossdresser and transgender...

The protected characteristic is gender reassignment and that will always be defined broadly.

A GRC has never required medical treatment, and that will not change, for the sensible and humane reason that no society should make rights dependent on sterilisation. (This has been tested in ECtHR)

What the SC confirmed was the definition of sex in law.

’trans’ is has never been defined in law.

A cross dresser has no discomfort with their sex, and as a result cannot get a GRC. They can change the sex markers on their passport, though.

To get a diagnosis of GD a patient doesn't need to cross dress, but needs to change the sex markers/titles on id to get a GRC.

Someone with the PC of GR needs to have undertaken, be currently undertaking or plans to undertake gender reassignment. But doesnt have to have id in their new gender, a diagnosis, cross dress or plan to have a GRC.

Im not sure that i could tell from looking who is in which category?

The one I’ve seen bleating on about it (and going to protests) is a total weekend Wendy who even has two Facebook profiles. One for his family under his real name, and his “new identity” one 🙄 He’d scare the shit out of you if he came in the ladies loo.

David Aaronovitch made a very good point where he said so much of men's response to this is rooted in castration anxiety. Why, the normie man thinks, would you do that unless it was a matter of life and death?

This is crucial, I think. Men don't see transwomen as women. They see them as transwomen, and feel sorry for them on that basis.

The concept of " sissification" is a compelling feature. It both attracts and repels.

Sissification is the process of being humiliated by becoming less of a man, and more of a woman. So many men seem to think, subliminally, that a woman is simply a castrated man. And many trans writers have spoken of the sexual thrill of such a process.

That's not what Debbie Hayton says of his own experience. Cross dressing starts most often in childhood and then can escalate and takes over the sexual drive completely. There are many cross dressers who have now embraced the 'trans' label and have declared dysphoria.

The Beaumont Society used to be an organisation for cross dressing men ( with a support group for their wives) but now it has re-branded itself as a fully fledged trans organisation. Men such as Robin Moira White would most definitely fall into this category. i know he doesn't have a GRC, but I think Debbie Hayton does?

I wonder how Eddie Izzard reacted to that? He's a prime example of what happened as a result of Stonewall's over-reach.

Interesting. I wonder why?

I thought this was really illuminating about cross dressing and fetishes and AGPness (not to be confused with aging penis)

it’s an interview between Grayson Perry and Giles brandreth

https://x.com/Terf_Rocks/status/1919089702964982161

https://x.com/Terf_Rocks/status/1919100918676504597

Reading through the consultation report before legislation was changed in Aus 12 years ago, the lobbyist position was about being very inclusive in definitions related to gender id, gender expression etc. One of the groups mentioned was "Genderfluid (cross-dresser, androgynous)". They've just rebranded, changed to new words like genderfluid that nobody knew the meaning of, gave a vague description, and hey presto. All the laws and policy changes are made by promoting the idea of the tiny group of dysphoric, fully transitioned, passing individuals, without recognising the category included in a new definition is much broader and more vague, and each iteration is more 'inclusive' than the last. Until the group is just anyone who says they are anything but 'cis'. So presumably Stonewall have just dropped the word cross-dresser, and replaced it with genderfluid or somesuch.