Do you support transitioning at all?

[UnlockedXCX]

I somewhat do, I will admit. I think it's okay if an adult wants to take hormones, dress as they'd like to, be treated as M or F, or even change their name. I'll respect it all. However I don't agree with them being allowed into single sex spaces or conversations (a gay trans person is functionally a straight person, despite what they say, and a gay FtM shouldn't try to date gay guys for example).

I question if this is a common view or is it niche in these more gender critical spaces.

“Not every trans person believes they have actually changed biological sex...most would probably say they've changed gender which is a social construct.”

So what relevance does this have to what facilities/sporting categories/prisons/hospital wards etc?

We don’t segregate because of social constructs.

I am aware not everyone believes in gender.

I am not sure anyone here doesn’t believe in gender. Certainly no one who is gender critical - they are critical of gender because it is a harmful social construct based around regression sex stereotypes that oppress women.

What many posters don’t believe in is that they must identify with these harmful constructs.

You call someone a ‘Christian’ because they believe in Christ. We call people transideologists because they believe in trans ideology. Call men who identify as trans ‘she’ is the same as wearing a hijab when you don’t believe in Islam; it is an act of that faith. It is saying you are going along with their belief that being a woman is based on regressive harmful sex stereotypes.

Not every trans person believes they have actually changed biological sex...most would probably say they've changed gender which is a social construct.

Spaces, services, sports, etc., are segregated on the basis of sex therefore why would someone who has changed gender assume or demand that they are to have full and unfettered access to those spaces and services for the opposite sex?

There is nothing extreme in upholding the sex based rights of women and girls.

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive.

I am gender critical, but I don't believe in the existence of gender as a thing that a person has.

That is why I said many posters don’t believe in is that they must identify with these harmful constructs.

Going off on a slight tangent for a moment...

I would absolutely wear a hijab if I was in a Muslim country where that was the norm.

Some Muslim women fight to wear a hijab (i.e. France) and other Muslim women fight not to (i.e. Iran).

Once you understand that and why you understand both religion and feminism.

Other points of yours and others are very interesting thank you. I will think on and get back to.

Totally agree with this.

To understand feminism you first need to understand the patriarchy that drive some French women to seek to subjucate themselve, and what it is about the Muslim country that means you feel obligated to observe articles of a faith that is not your own.

You can’t change gender either
changing how you behave simply expands the understanding of that gender…

and fortunately the extremists have no hold - I understand that sex and gender can’t be changed and that stating it can is an extreme view….

BeLemonNow Not every trans person believes they have actually changed biological sex...most would probably say they've changed gender which is a social construct.

So the era of 'Transwomen are women and how dare you say they are not exactly the same as any other woman' is over? Great news! Mind you, I wondered how long 'TWAW' could survive the glaringly obvious evidence to the contrary...

If trans people don't believe they have actually changed biological sex, that's great because then they'll have no problem using the facilities designated for their biological sex, and trans activists can stop obsessing about toilets and throwing urine around the place and pissing on statues and that kind of thing. Super!

There's been a few quoting me r.e. same sex spaces. I fully support same sex spaces such loos and sports. I can understand why some trans want to use them, usually because they identify as that gender. But that is incompatible with the privacy and dignity of other users.

What I was opposing was the actual removing rights from trans, such as not being sacked from a job, like the Trump administration is attempting to do that in the armed forces only because someone is openly transgender. Not because of an objective criteria. In the UK that is illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

I think you might need to look deeper into why a person who has a medical condition that requires such extensive treatment and ongoing chemical treatment that impact action readiness should have more rights to be in the military than the others who have similar medical needs but are not eligible to join the military.

Are you are basing this on just the military example, is there any other ‘right’ that Trump is removing.

@MarieDeGournay it's very important to understand that not all trans people believe the same things or want the same things.

For a long time the loudest voices have been those with the most extensive and anti-woman demands. Those with more moderate views get shouted down within the LGBQT community.

Solutions are possible. New leaders can arise within the LGBQT sector who make space to allow that is ok to believe that TWAW but not ok to force that belief on others, that it's ok to believe in your womanliness but not undignified and perfectly acceptable to use unisex facilities due to being physically male, and it's ok to live life as a valid and fulfilled trans person who understands their sex hasn't and never will change, and that these are valid and accepted views that can exist side by side with mutual respect. In that context, the idea that the belief that TWAW can be forced on nonconsenting unbelievers through the wielding of a barbed wire covered baseball bat will die out.

All women in all countries are oppressed in different ways. There aren't any genuinely equal ones yet, as far as I know, free from harmful stereotypes.

For example, my first job aged 17 was in a lingerie department including in the changing rooms.

By far and away, and shockingly at the time, Muslim women were the only group predominantly comfortable in their bodies (not apologising for their not perfectly flat stomachs), and buying the bras they wanted to wear.

It shows how much we all in the UK suffer under the male gaze and oppressive body standards (while incidentally often wearing the wrong size bra which can cause back pain!). That includes hair. When wearing my hair down crossing a nearby road, cars often stop for me but not otherwise.

I don't agree that a woman who covers her head is doing so because they are seeking to subjugate themselves, except in countries like Iran. If I wore a head scarf in i.e. a UK mosque I would simply be being polite and respectful, same as if I wore a shrug attending a conservative church.

I feel that attitude against hijabs is itself a patriarchal one. I know a few UK hijab wearing women and it's quite funny to consider them subjugated.

So you recognise women are oppressed by gender but are still happy to supporting men who reinforce those oppressive stereotypes?

You also seem to recognise the impact of male gaze on uk women, but are refusing to acknowledge it is exactly the same issue driving Muslim women to be ‘happy’ to wear hijabs. Choices made by women do not exist in isolation from culture.

Yes I do. I support adults to do whatever they want to their own bodies but that’s the extent of it. I won’t support the delusion that an inverted penis is actually a functioning vagina etc.

I am not an expert on "what has Trump done now". I'm using it as an example of what is actual anti trans versus those of us in the UK who want same sex spaces / the UK Supreme Court judgement.

However, a quick Google shows ...

President Donald Trump revoked President Biden's Executive Order 13988 on his first day in office, January 20, 2025. This order, titled "Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation", was signed by President Biden on January 20, 2021 and was one of the first actions taken by the new administration. It was revoked within hours of Trump's inauguration.

That seems broadly equivalent to a government coming into power and revoking the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. But I'm not an expert.

And yes I agree that some trans may not be suitable to serve in the armed forces based on medication or mental health. Just not that they automatically are, particularly forcing out ones who have been serving with distinction simply because they are trans. That's prejudice and discrimination.

So, you have gone to the executive order and checked this for yourself? Or are you relying on other's interpretation of what the order says?

Sorry, didn't mean that reply to come across as snarky. I don't know the science behind it. Just that there are some scientists who believe there's a connection and that there is apparently some evidence suggesting so.

The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Differences in brain structure that come about from chemical messengers and genes interacting on developing brain cells are believed to be the basis of sex differences in countless behaviors, including sexual orientation.[1]: 25 Prenatal factors that affect or interfere with the interaction of these hormones on the developing brain can influence later sex-typed behavior in children.[1]: 24 This hypothesis is originated from experimental studies in non-human mammals, yet the argument that similar effects can be seen in human neurobehavioral development is a much debated topic among scholars.[2] Recent studies, however, have provided evidence in support of prenatal androgen exposure influencing childhood sex-typed behavior.[2]

Fetal hormones may be seen as either the primary influence upon adult sexual orientation or as a co-factor interacting with genes.[3] Garcia-Falgueras and Dick Swaab disagree that social conditions influence sexual orientation to a large degree. As seen in young children as well as in vervet and rhesus monkeys, sexually differentiated behavior in toy preference is differing in males versus females, where females prefer dolls and males prefer toy balls and cars; these preferences can be seen as early as 3–8 months in humans.[2] It is impossible to completely rule out the social environment or the child's cognitive understanding of gender when discussing sex typed play in androgen-exposed girls.[2] Conversely, children tend towards objects which have been labelled for their own sex, or toys that they have seen members of their sex playing with previously.[2]

An endocrinology study by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab postulated that "In humans, the main mechanism responsible of [sic] sexual identity and orientation involves a direct effect of testosterone on the developing brain."[1]: 25 Further, their study puts forward that intrauterine exposure to hormones is largely determinative. Sketching the argument briefly here, the authors say that sexual organs are differentiated first, and then the brain is sexually differentiated "under the influence, mainly, of sex hormones such as testosterone, estrogen and progesterone on the developing brain cells and under the presence of different genes as well ... The changes brought about in this stage are permanent. ... Sexual differentiation of the brain is not caused by hormones alone, even though they are very important for gender identity and sexual orientation."[1]: 24

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation#:~:text=An%20endocrinology%20study%20by%20Garcia,to%20hormones%20is%20largely%20determinative.

Here you are @BeLemonNow

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness/

Here is the order.

If you know much about military service, you also then would know that there are many potential conflicts if someone has not disclosed their true sex. Such as accommodations, health status, fitness status and the potential to coercively force someone to accept a persons language demands.

So, if a male person demands that he should be treated as if he is female, how does that work? Do they get to only ever fulfil the fitness specifications of female people? Do they share showers with female people, which may be fully communal? How do you think it should work?

And should any person have to act as if someone's gender identity reflects material reality, including linguistically?

Dick Swaab.

im sorry. Im childish.

And when in combat and exercise situations, should a male person have to have special accommodations if the decision is the they cannot be accommodated as a female person?

While I understand that you are trying to make a point, the issue is that the military is a very different environment to a typical employer. When someone expects to be treated as the opposite sex, do you expect the military to accommodate this?

Or, are those people with gender identities simply expected to have their identity but accept that they are the sex they were born? So, no special accommodations made.

I can state that I would have hated having to be paired up in the police with someone who claims to have gender dysphoria.

Having to deal with all their special needs and wants, all the extra steps required to suit them, all the pandering, and especially the having to worry about their likely hostile reception in many many situations which brings additional risks to me, them and the public is just exhausting to have to consider.

Add in how do you deal with a policeman calling himself a woman when going to a rape victim or similarly sensitive situation where sex is very very important to how you handle each step? Bearing in mind you go to these calls several times a week, not once in a blue moon?

Nah, gender dysphoria is absolutely a mental disorder in the same way as body integrity dysphoria (ie wants to be disabled). People with these types of overt mental health issues shouldn't be on the front line of the emergency services or the military, because they absolutely need help and not to be exposed to more harm. Their brains and their lives are much more important than their jobs and they should not be encouraged in the mental delusion in such key roles where your integrity is paramount to the job.

This is interesting.

As an atheist do you use the language of Christian beliefs when you communicate with Christians? Even if you don't believe in any god, do you act as if you do generally around Christians, or just to comfort someone specifically?

Do you find it acceptable that a group of people can change the English language to suit their specific philosophical belief, particularly when they are a minority with that belief?

And what do you think could be proven with more research and what impact do you think this finding will have on policies and laws that we discuss here everyday?