Why is anti-trans so important?

[Elizabethbd]

So, I will preface this with saying that I’m not in the UK, and my country does not yet have the kind of anti-trans debate as there is in the English speaking world.

So, I have a hard time understanding why this is such an important question to many women.

Surely there are women’s issues that affect a larger part of society.

I’m thinking rape and violence towards women, homelesness, sex trafficking and honour killings. Why are these issues not more important and worthy of attention, as they affect so many more women than those who come into contact with trans women (or men)?

Honestly, I think for all the peopl ewho worry about "Real" transwomen (and as I posted pages ago - I get it... I felt that way too until I peaked), you just have to look at the coverage of any rally/protest that includes transwomen to know that the ones who are screaming loudest, are also the ones that are most obviously not "real". Don't get me wrong, I agree with other posters - we don't know what the average trans woman is thinking and a man is a man is a man.

But the cognitive dissonance that must take place when watching/attending such an event and trying to onvince yourself that "real" transwomen are victims while looking at a bunch of hairy blokes dressed as caricatures of women must be mind blowing.

What defines a real pretend women, as opposed to a pretend pretend women?

What?

I don't know. Don't care really. There are women. And there are men. Transwomen, of any sort, are men who are not women. Some are pretending they are women, some genuinely think they are women. But they're not women.

My son genuinely thinks that he is hard done by because I insist on bedtime at a certain time. Doesn't mean he's right or that I have to pander to his thinking.

But there are people who think it DOES make a difference and I'm fascinated by how they can just ignore the evidence of men getting off on wearing women's clothes or invading women's spaces. It's not exactly hidden frankly.

When exploring the topic of genuine and not genuine transwomen, really what is it?

Is Sarah Baker ‘genuine’ or not?

Duration? long time
Commitment? removed own testicles, organises protests and consults on behalf of community.
Presentation? Wears whatever, not necessarily ‘female’ presenting, and we only know about surgery because of reporting of self surgery.

And during the GRR bill debate, the following amendments were suggested -

an amendment to pause an application for a GRC for those charged with rape or sexual assault which was defeated by the casting vote of the Presiding Officer.

An amendment which sought to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender.

Both voted down.

In fact, there were over 150 amendments, discussed over a ridiculously short 2 days, with the majority voted down, including a suggestion to yearly monitor the effects of the GRR Bill on women and girls rights.

It actually beggars belief.

Do you know who tabled the amendments? Terrible to think I was so unaware of this travesty taking place.

Michelle Thomson for the first.

Russell Findlay for the second.

I'll get the relevant voting details from the SG website this evening.

I don't have the answer to your question to hand, but @Waitwhat23 may have.

However, If you would like to relive the frustration of the women on this board concerning the GRR bill at the time via the medium of poetry...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C129WKDD

I keep going back to principle rather than anecdote:
no man can become a woman. It's not possible.

So regardless of whether he is Dylan Mulvaney or Isla Bryson or Pete the plumber, a 'genuine' transwoman or a 'fake' one who has just been sentenced and wants to get into a women's prison..

If you stick to the scientific fact that NO man can become a woman, the actual appearance, mannerisms, behaviour, head tilt , clothing, earrings and the motivation of the man in question is beside the point.

If a facility or a service is single sex and is designated for biological women, he doesn't belong there, full stop, as a matter of principle.

In relation to amendments voted down in respect to sexual offenders (please note that all but 40 - 42 were voted down) -

'Group 2 is on applicants with criminal charges or convictions. Amendment 18, in the name of Russell Findlay, is grouped with amendments 22, 28, 39, 39A, 39B, 39C, 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, 40D, 40E, 41, 42, 50, 52 and 53.'

Amendment 22 (Russell Findlay)

After section 3, insert—
<Notification requirements
In section 84 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after subsection (1)(f) insert—
“( ) his submitting an application under sections 8A(1), 8F(1), 8J(1),
8K(1) or 8O(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”.>

Amendment 28 (Russell Findlay)

In section 4, page 3, line 23, after <particular,> insert—
<( ) is not subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual
Offences Act 2003, or has obtained an order under section 8PB (order
authorising application),>

Amendment 39 (Michelle Thomson, supported by Russell Findlay)

After section 4, insert—

<Paused applications

After section 8C of the 2004 Act (inserted by section 4) insert—
“8CA Paused applications
5 (1) This section applies where an application under section 8A(1) is made by a person who has been charged with a sexual offence listed in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the Registrar General for Scotland must not grant an application under section 8A(1) until such time as the case against the applicant has been disposed of.”.>

Amendment 39A - 39C (Russell Findlay)
39A

As an amendment to amendment 39, line 6, after <with> insert <—
<( )>

39B
As an amendment to amendment 39, line 7, at end insert—
<( ) an offence aggravated as described in section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016.>

39C
As an amendment to amendment 39, line 7, at end insert—
<( ) fraud.>

Amendment 40 (Gillian Martin, supported by Jamie Greene)
After section 6A, insert—
<Notification by chief constable in connection with applications by certain offenders
After section 8EA of the 2004 Act (inserted by section 6A) insert—
“8EB
5
Notification by chief constable in connection with applications by certain
offenders (Scotland)
(1) Subsection (2) applies where the chief constable makes an application for a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual offences prevention order which, if made, would prevent a person from making an application for a gender recognition certificate.
(2) The chief constable must notify the Registrar General for Scotland of—
10 (a) the making of the application for the order,
1 (b) the making of any interim order preventing the person from making an application for a gender recognition certificate,
(c) the outcome of the application for the order, when the application has been finally determined,
(d) where an order preventing the person from making an application for a gender recognition certificate is made—
(i) the terms of the order, and
(ii) any subsequent variation, renewal or discharge of the order.
(3)
20
An application for a gender recognition certificate made in breach of an order mentioned in subsection (2)(b) or (d) is of no effect (and, accordingly, is to be treated by the Registrar General as if it had never been made).
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply where—
(a) the chief constable makes an application for a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual offences prevention order in relation to a person who has made an application for a gender recognition certificate (“the applicant”),
(b) the application for the certificate has not yet been determined by the Registrar General, and
(c) the order would, if made, require the applicant to withdraw that application.
(5) The chief constable must notify the Registrar General of—
30 (a) the making of the application for the order,
(b) the outcome of that application, when the application has been finally determined.
(6) Where the Registrar General receives notification under subsection (5)(a), the Registrar General must not take any further steps in relation to the application for the certificate unless the chief constable notifies the Registrar General under subsection (5)(b) that either—
(a) no order has been made, or
(b) an order has been made, but it does not require the applicant to withdraw the application for the certificate.
40 (7) For the purposes of this section, an application for a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual offences prevention order is finally determined when—
(a) any appeal in respect of the application is finally determined or withdrawn,
or
(b)the period for making such an appeal expires with no appeal having been made.
(8) In this section—
“application for a gender recognition certificate” means an application under section 8A(1), 8F(1), 8J(1) or 8K(1) for a gender recognition certificate or under section 8O(1) for a confirmatory gender recognition certificate,
50 “chief constable” means the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland,
“sexual harm prevention order” and “interim sexual harm prevention order” have the meanings given by section 25(1) of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, “sexual offences prevention order” and “interim sexual offences prevention order” have the meanings given by section 133(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”.>

Amendment 41 (Gillian Martin, Jamie Greene)
In section 7, page 6, line 40, leave out <8EA> and insert <8EB>

Amendment 42 (Gillian Martin, supported by Jamie Greene)
In section 7, page 6, line 40, leave out <6A> and insert <(Notification by chief constable in connection with applications by certain offenders)>

Amendment 50 (Russell Findlay)

After section 8A, insert—
<Order authorising application
After section 8PA of the 2004 Act (inserted by section 8A) insert—

8PB Order authorising application
(1) A sheriff may, on the application of a person intending to apply for a gender recognition certificate (“P”), order the Registrar General for Scotland to accept the application if—
(a) P is not permitted to apply by virtue of section 8A(1)(ab) and,
(b) the sheriff considers it manifestly unfair in the circumstances to prohibit P from applying.
(2) In determining whether it is manifestly unfair in the circumstances to prohibit P from applying, the sheriff must consider, in particular—
(a) the nature of the offences that has made P subject to notification requirements,
(b) the seriousness of those offences,
(c) any relationship between those offences and the obtaining of a gender recognition certificate,
(d) any other matter that the Scottish Ministers specify in regulations.”>

Amendment 52 (Russell Findlay)

In section 9, page 15, line 39, at end insert <,or
(d) the person to whom the certificate was issued has, since the certificate issued,
been convicted of—
(i) rape,
(ii) sexual assault involving the perpetrator’s genitalia of sex at birth,>

Amendment 53 (Russell Findlay)
In section 9, page 16, line 3, at end insert—
<( ) The sheriff may make an order on an application under subsection (1)(d) if satisfied that it would be unreasonable in the circumstances for the person to whom the certificate was issued to continue to hold a certificate.>

Taken from -

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill

This includes minutes and reports of the various debates and the voting record.

See also -

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,gender-recognition-reform-msps-reject-amendment-following-government-concerns-about-competence

(Apologies for any typos etc, it's very dense information to look through!)

And I was putting together a list of all the denied amendments but it is far too long to post so I'll just add this (which was denied) -

Amendment 12 (Rachael Hamilton)

After section 14, insert—
<Impact of this Act on the provision of single sex services
Impact of this Act on the provision of single sex services
(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a report on the impact of this Act on the provision of single sex services.
(2) In this section, the reporting periods are—
(a) the period beginning with the day on which section 2 comes into force and ending with the day one year after the day on which section 2 comes into force,
(b) each subsequent period of one year.>

That’s just fucking shocking!

Thank you @BeeSouriante
My thougts exactly. I was honestly prepared to be convinved. But Having Donald Trump on your side should prompt some self reflection.

For those of you asking where I live, it’s Sweden. We know a thing or two about women’s rights, as I’m sure you know.

Bingo!

And you live in Sweden but started a disingenuous thread where you claimed to be unaware of the debate despite this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/17/sweden-passes-law-lowering-age-to-legally-change-gender-from-18-to-16

I strongly believe that if someone needs intimate care, they have every right to request (and should get) single sex care. This includes bathing, dressing, toileting, changing of sanitary products (if female), etc.

Some trans activists say that this is transphobic.

Lets say that Trump agrees with me and thinks that people should be able to request single sex intimate care (I don't know how he actually feels about this). Should I change my mind just because Trump agrees? Should I ignore my own experiences of CSA, then further sexual abuse in hospital and bury down my own feelings of discomfort as a disabled woman just because an orange American agrees with me?

I don't care what country you are from or what their record is on women's rights. The basic fact is the human beings cannot change sex and a transwoman is male. When I (or anyone) need intimate care, it is not transphobic to request single-sex care and anyone who trys the guilt by association of 'you need to reflect because Trump agrees with you and he is a bad person' can sod off.

I presume that if Trump proclaimed that gravity was indeed the thing that made objects fall to earth, you would be equally speedy in denouncing such balderdash?

Plus, it is pretty plain to see that Bee is highly likely to have skin in the game.

The “Trump agrees with you on this, therefore it’s bad” argument is one of the most stupid in a crowded field.

Oh don't be facile. Female people exist. That is a fact whatever Trump may or may not think about the matter.

Whatever trans women are experiencing, it is manifestly a different thing to being female bodied.

Trans women may feel a deep kinship to female bodied people inside their own heads but in the objective reality they have to share with the rest of humanity they are no closer to being female bodied than any other man. So there is no reason whatsoever that trans women's needs for safety and acceptance should be met by repurposing the protections, rights and language that are supposed to be there to support female people.

They have no moral claim to what they are demanding and it is deeply unfair to female people for society to enable this appropriation. We are complete humans in our own right with our own needs and challenges not just scenery for men's self actualisation.

I'm afraid that post from the OP really wound me up.

Yea. Seems odd
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sweden/article/2024/03/30/swedish-feminist-organizations-oppose-gender-self-identification-law_6666844_213.html

Touché[e] Elizabethbd!

I answered the OP in good faith [MarieDeGournay · 24/06/2025 12:19] and with no help at all from D. Trump - I have my own mind and my own intelligence to sort out right from wrong, thank you Elizabethbd.

I was clearly a mug to believe that the OP was in good faith and not saying stuff just to get a reaction - having Donald Trump's attitude to sincerity should prompt some self reflection.

Donald Trump isn't on women's side, don't be so daft.

The problem is, neither are the Democrats.

If you've read the responses to this thread and you've only reached "but Donald Trump" levels of understanding, there really is no hope for you. It certainly doesn't say much about Sweden's education system.

I suspect the OP picked a Nordic country at random.