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.

If you think that transgender should have actual existing rights removed as per the Equality Act then I would consider that anti-trans.

I.e. that you think it should be legal for someone to lose their job - any job - simply because they are trans then that is anti trans.

It sounds like you think that. Do you also think any religion you don't believe in should no have these rights removed too?

You can't possibly believe in all the beliefs of religions as they contradictory and "not consistent of material reality" either.

''I.e. that you think it should be legal for someone to lose their job - any job - simply because they are trans then that is anti trans.''

Its just not that cut and dried.
If a man with a GRC applied for a job that should have been given to a woman, he should not be in that job. A man with a GRC shouldn't be placed in a women's prison, DV refuge, or psychiatric ward.
I think that sometimes sex matters and when it does safeguarding and dignity are paramount.
You might say that makes me anti trans.

No I agree with all those points and wouldn't say that makes anyone anti trans.

I simply mean an employer finds out "Charlie" is transgender and sacks them.

That's the sort of discrimination the Equality Act was designed to tackle.

As per the SC judgment it never gave i.e. transwomen the right to women's same sex spaces.

But where does that leave people who have no sense that something is wrong with their sex but are same sex attracted?

I have not expressed such opinions that you have just attributed to me at all. I think that if you have read my posts this way, that is perhaps your own bias at play.

It was you who brought the US military issue into the discussion and I don't really think that you understand the needs of the military are rather different from civilian organisations. Do you? Did I miss you addressing the issues that I discussed? I did not see any acknowledgement of the distinction between military needs and civilian organisational needs.

Do you understand the safeguarding needs within the military service on active duty?

So, do you understand the difference? Or do you believe that female military personnel should have to share single sex spaces and living accommodations with a male person in combat situations? That is really just one aspect of the situation it creates. There are others and I briefly mentioned them.

Please detail to us why a male person with a transgender identity should be treated as if they are a female person in the military ready for active duty?

Religions? Well, no I don't believe they should be discriminated against? Do they demand special treatment that requires all other people in the organisation to act in compliance to their religion? Do they ask for additional privileges?

But you mention religion, do you believe that being transgender should be treated like just any other philosophical belief? Because if you do, that sounds like we agree.

So, why have you just falsely accused me of holding that belief?

Or again, is it because you cannot understand the difference between the needs of a military force, with its very same safeguarding issues that you have just agreed with and other organisations?

I'd like to see studies as to whether men with gender dysphoria are less dangerous to women if they get their penises surgically removed. If so I'd support that. But without data I just don't know. Otherwise, I don't think people should be allowed to impose their fetishes on others and involve them in their sex play against their will. I had a boyfriend who came out as trans and pretending to be a woman was definitely a sexual turn-on for him. I don't want to be made to be part of that for anyone.

Would you like the convicted prisoner statistics for the UK? It doesn't show surgical status but can you explain why you think that a male person requires a penis to sexually abuse someone? The stats show that in general male people with transgender identities are just as likely to commit sex crimes than all other male people.

I can also give you all the studies from sports that show that male people do not lose their male physical advantages with a loss of testosterone. Loss of penis or/and loss of testes doesn't mean that a male person has lost their power, particularly their grip strength which is rather a key to attack.

Plus there is also the issue where a male person entering a female single sex space is likely to be accurately identified as being male. Their surgical status is actually meaningless in this identification process because it is irrelevant and unnecessary to know. So if a female is going to be harmed and distressed at a male person being in their single sex space, does it matter about their surgical status.

Also, it would be cruel to make surgery a prerequisite for entry into a space that the person should be excluded from. I think that no male person or female person should have to have surgery to be considered the sex that they are never going to be.

If someone took a job under false pretences (ie a job reserved for a woman and they are a transwoman) then it would be proportional to unwind that, and yes they would lose their job…

but that would not be because they are ‘transgender’ but because they are male and should never have been given the job in the first place…

no-one should be losing a job where their gender beliefs are not relevant, just because they are ‘transgender’

is it possible that they might not be employed in the first place? Yes if integrity / openness was a criteria and there was concern that in their living a lie (transitioning is not possible) it might affect their job - that would also be proportional

I have looked back BeLemonnow and no, you did not actually address more than one or two points raised by me or others about your military example.

So, do you understand the need for female people for single sex provisions in the military when they are expected to go on active duty, even exercise? Where will a male person who demands to be treated as a female person live?

What language will be result in disciplinary action by anyone who doesn't comply with the demand? What fitness standard should this male person have to maintain to remain in the military?

You have used one example for discrimination. I don't believe that you understand that sex matters a great deal for many defence decisions.

If a male transgender person was in the military and indicated that they should remain being treated like any other male person of that rank and career stream, then you would have a point. But I don't believe that this was the case with the EO. And the EO asked for opinions to be submitted on how to deal with what is likely to be these very situations that I and others have mentioned. That you have not acknowledged are very much issues.

Then you posted that you agreed with this:

A man with a GRC shouldn't be placed in a women's prison, DV refuge, or psychiatric ward.
I think that sometimes sex matters and when it does safeguarding and dignity are paramount.
You might say that makes me anti trans.

I pointed out that indeed sex matters in the military for safeguarding and dignity etc, yet you have surmised that I am anti-trans.

I have asked you if you support revoking the Equality Act 2010 which you quoted and didn't answer. You then started complaining about transgender getting additional privileges that aren't available to other groups etc based on supposedly dubious beliefs which sounded a lot like you supported getting rid of it. That's what the Equality Act does.

I was using the example of the US military simply as an example of a country where rights are being cut back compared to here. I have also said that if there was an objective criteria why a transgender person could not serve them that would be okay but a blanket ban without that is not. I don't agree with any stated reason that they are "lying".

Not being in the military yet alone the US I was unable to answer detailed about how that would work, or what exactly is or isn't allowed or needed. I am simply saying carte blache discrimination because someone is trans is unacceptable. That's when I raised the Equality Act as it would be prohibited here for a Commander to make such comments.

Yes there are a number of "special treatments" for religions in the workplace: adjustments to uniforms, flexible working arrangements around particular holidays or religious requirements like Ramadan, removal of certain elements of jobs that would conflict i.e. serving alcohol. Again this falls under the Equality Act.

I don't know what you mean by treating transgender "as any other philosophical beliefs".

@Greyskybluesky Sorry I don't. It was probably in materials from a government legislative drafting seminar. Which is now gender free and you might find interesting, see

https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/10/breaking-down-gender-stereotypes-in-legal-writing/

It gets convoluted using "they". It is mainly when you want to refer to a single person but that person could be a he or she. If you say "the chair of the committee is responsible for such and such. And they..." Then it sounds like you may mean the committee as a whole or you may mean the chair. So you have to restate "the chair". For legal language that is okay as it is convoluted anyway! But day to day we use pronouns for clarity and convenience.

You can appreciate this happening in day to day language too. I.e. "My son's new partner are coming to meet us for the first time." "Oh are they nervous?". Would sound like both. But you may not want to use "she" because they might not be!

With the "Peter" example I have realised don't like "ze" as it sounds like a dubious 1980s film Russian accent! !

I did bring this because someone objected to trans changing the use of language. Noone should be forced to use "she" for a transwomen but using "they" regularly does introduce ambiguities as well and I can appreciate that is awkward. There have been various feminist arguments for a neutral but yes none of the suggested have ever caught on.

That said if some GC wanted to start using a new neutral pronouns to refer to someone that's an option as long as it wasn't anything rude...

Can I please suggest you read about what you are discussing?

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Spotlight/2025/Guidance_For_Federal_Policies/Prioritizing_Military_Excellence_and_Readiness_P&R_Guidance.pdf

It clearly states serving military personnel are exempt from this action if they agree to stay in service as their sex. Therefore, use provisions and standards that are in line with that person’s sex. And language.

It is not a blanket ban, but is reflective of the things you have stated are acceptable. Knowing this, do you consider this Order to be illegitimate discrimination or is it legitimate discrimination?

I had read this before I commented. I had asked you earlier if you had. Had you?

Like I said, my intention wasn't to start a discussion about Trumps orders. I am not in the USA and nor am I in the military.

And no I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to have read all that before mentioning it. If I started a thread about it sure.

'I don't know what you mean by treating transgender "as any other philosophical beliefs".'

I mean, that there are no biological or neurological markers that indicate that someone is transgender. Therefore the only commonality between people with transgender identities is that they share a philosophical belief about themselves but it is not a belief that reflects the material reality of the sex class of their individual bodies.

I mean that no one should be illegimately discriminated against for having a philosophical belief such as this, but then also no other person should be coerced into acting as if they support this belief. That is the way that other philosophical beliefs are protected in the UK.

For example, by 'coerced' I mean that there should be no policies or laws dictating that people have to act as if that philosophical belief was in fact based on material reality. A male person will always be a male person regardless of their belief or any extreme body modifications they have done.

No female person should have to act as if they believe that the male person is not a male person under threat of consequences from policy and/or law and accept that male person in their female single sex provision. Whether that is facilities, services, sports, care scenarios and a whole range of areas where sex matters.

No other philosophical belief that is not based in material reality has been affirmed in society where other people have to act as if that belief is materially real.

'adjustments to uniforms, flexible working arrangements around particular holidays or religious requirements like Ramadan, removal of certain elements of jobs that would conflict i.e. serving alcohol. Again this falls under the Equality Act.'

These are reasonable adjustments. No person in that workplace has to act as if they too believe in that religious belief, do they? Respect the religious needs, but actively comply? I don't believe so unless it was a protected characteristic that was used during recruitment which would mean it would have to be a very specific workplace.

These reasonable adjustments have little impact on other people during the day to day work environment in most instances. This is not the same as the demands that conflict directly with female people's needs which allow for legitimate discrimination under the EA2010.

Respect the religious needs, but actively comply?

should be

Respect the religious needs, yes, but actively comply? No.

I did bring this because someone objected to trans changing the use of language. Noone should be forced to use "she" for a transwomen but using "they" regularly does introduce ambiguities as well and I can appreciate that is awkward.

why is the choice only between she and they?!
we have pronouns that work well already - use he and there is complete clarity and accuracy.

as you show, the minute you try and pretend something that is not real you end up tripping over the lack of logic.

honesty and clarity and transparency really do work best, however… ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practice to deceive,‘ Scott.

By the way. 'You then started complaining about transgender getting additional privileges that aren't available to other groups etc based on supposedly dubious beliefs which sounded a lot like you supported getting rid of it. That's what the Equality Act does.' I started complaining, did I?

FFS.

Did you actually engage and ask what additional privileges I was talking about?

Let me explain. Additional privileges means that someone who is a male person not only gets to access male single sex provisions, they got to access female single sex provisions under policies that misinterpreted, and many still do, the EA. That means a group of male people can access more provisions than anyone else.

This works for sport and other opportunities. Including for employment opportunities that use exceptions for sex under the EA where some organisations erroneously have stated they accept male people with the philosophical belief that they are female to apply for roles meant for female people. Such as Midrul Wadhwa. As a male person, Wadhwa got access to a role that other male people were not accepted to apply for. Again, that is an additional privilege.

Additional privileges are not human rights even though they are usually wrongfully described as such.

For instance, there is no human right that says any male person should expect to have privacy away from other people of their sex in a publicly provided single sex space. All male people are expected to share that space with each other. So, why is it that a group of male people were given not just the option of using male single sex facilities but also female single sex facilities. Therefore they have all the options whereas the rest off the population are expected to respect the single sex provision. This was a privilege as there is no right that male people should expect to not use male single sex facilities provided for public use. And it was in addition to the basic human rights provision.

I see. I am to accept the accusation that I am anti-trans without be able to comment on why that is false and offensive.

In basic terms, no man has the right to male and female spaces because he wishes to.
This doesn't hinder him using the male facilities, nor wearing a dress, lipstick, stilettos, barbie pink...
No one with this view is being transphobic. I have this opinion and don't believe in gender so it's not something real for me to fear.

'I have asked you if you support revoking the Equality Act 2010 which you quoted and didn't answer. You then started complaining about transgender getting additional privileges that aren't available to other groups etc based on supposedly dubious beliefs which sounded a lot like you supported getting rid of it. That's what the Equality Act does.'

By the way, please can you point to my post to you where I have quoted the Act to you? I have looked back quite far and I have not seen where I have done this, If I missed a question in relation to where I have quoted the Act, please point it out.

I don't believe that I have given any indication that I would support revoking the Equality Act. Looking back on this thread to see what I have and haven't said, I really don't have much understanding of why you or anyone else would come to that conclusion. I don't support revoking the EA.

I pointed out to you that your interpretation of the actions of the USA military recently seemed to not match either the official orders. And that you had been agreeing with legitimate actions that are the same actions that are discussed in the order.

I pointed out that if you had read the original source material that perhaps you might see that what they have enacted is actually close to what our own UK supreme court judgment clarified. That when sex is mentioned, it means biological sex only, and that provisions that are described officially as being for female military personnel is only for female military personnel. And that as long as someone in the military agreed to act as their sex, including using sex based language, they could apply for a waiver of the order. Because sex matters for a great many aspects of military life. Didn't you agree that when sex matters, sex based provisions are acceptable? Or have I misinterpreted your posts?

Looking back, I really don't see what would ever lead you to think I would support the revoking of the EA. Quite the fucking opposite in fact. But then I also didn't see my mention of the term 'additional privileges' warranted your next claim of 'You then started complaining about transgender getting additional privileges that aren't available to other groups etc based on supposedly dubious beliefs which sounded a lot like you supported getting rid of it. That's what the Equality Act does.'

Do you support male people with the philosophical belief that they are female receiving additional privileges? And I don't mean reasonable accommodations, such as third spaces or something that doesn't conflict with the needs of female people.

What do you call a demand to access provisions that are not intended for the group that demand access while they still have access to their rightful provisions as well? Particularly when that access to the other group's provisions leave that group open to the harm that the provisions were supposed to be protecting that group from?

I had assumed from your posts that you supported female single sex provisions. But maybe I was wrong and maybe you think that male people should have access not just to their own single sex provisions but those set up for female people's needs as well, if they believe they should be able to.

I wonder if part of the issue here is that the protection of "transgender identity" in things like the EA, or other legislation in other places, is a little incoherent.

It's very difficult to pin down what that would even look like, or what counts as a transgender identity. If the obligation is NOT for others to treat that person as the opposite sex, what does that mean? Presumably it does not mean allowing them in female only places, or insisting on people using inaccurate pronouns. So does it mean letting them wear uniforms of the opposite sex? Padding bras? Something else?

Many GC people also think the medical category of "transgender" is being treated in a way that is not medically justified and puts the patients very much at risk. If that's true, why would we want the law to protect that designation?

I would agree. I think that in the successful effort of Stonewall and other groups consulting over the past decade, that there is a great deal of confusion about what should be considered reasonable by way and what isn’t. In addition, what constitutes ‘human rights’ and what are not ‘human rights’ has also been confused.

I think that also some people keep being drawn into lazy accusations as to what is ‘anti-trans’ and what is not, because it is overused by some media outlets. The paucity of accurate reporting from the BBC and the Guardian is a concern.

The Supreme Court clarification was clear in some ways about single sex provision. However, it still left confusion because of the interaction of other guidance and laws.

For example what is allowable by way of permitted language. Are workplaces allowed to create policy about pronouns usage that says that all people must use a person’s requested pronouns? Or is that violating another group’s rights?

I think the US military order is actually a very relevant discussion point for this thread. Because, in my opinion, it is the extreme end of the SC judgement being implemented.

When you do read the actual order issued by the US DoD, (link posted last night) it uses clear unemotional language that then states similar clauses to the SC judgement. Namely, there are only two sexes and these are immutable and that sex based provision should be sex based only.

Where the DoD went further, due to the nature of military disciplinary process, it made clear that personnel must use sex based language. Ie that people cannot be disciplined for using sex based language when a person demands that they use preferred pronouns.

Maybe it is seeing the orders clear, precise language that is the issue for some.

I also think some people and media need to claim any organisation not making special accommodations is ‘anti-trans’. And people and media lazily don’t consider the unique conditions of the military at all when using it as an example.

That lack of thinking makes it an easy target. Therefore to media and others, this became something easy to be categorised as hateful, as anti-trans.

Whereas to me, this is what the SC judgement will look like without the reasonable adjustments of third spaces etc. Albeit the order is brief and unable to be misinterpreted as military orders usually are.

Reasonable adjustments such as third spaces are not available in many deployment scenarios. Medication is a significant issue as has often been acknowledged. There is a requirement to have all personnel that can be deployed achieve a minimum level of fitness and health.

Is that the issue? If a workplace cannot provide special considerations due to the nature of its work, it is legitimate to characterise it as ‘anti-trans’? Or is ‘anti-trans’ just going to continue to be this lazy accusation ?