some parallels

[Manfreglory]

I've been teasing out this idea, that transphobia and xenophobia have much in common.

• both rest on 'you're not from here; your culture is different; you can't know what it is to have grown up 'over here'/had period pains/gone through labour.

• both reject difference or change in favour of sameness or stasis. 'You look and talk and think differently/you underwent a journey to get here/I can't fully relate to you'.

• both rest not just on culture but on biology: 'Your genes are different than mine/your genotype for phenotype A, B or C aren't identical to mine'.

• both are territorial: 'i sweated blood as a member of this sex/to make it in this society - who are you to come here and demand a seat at the table'?

• both are suspicious of the reasons for transformation. 'You just want the perks of being female; you just want to look up our skirts in the toilet; you just migrated here from Guatemala for financial stability.'

• both demonize, aggressively overstating the chance that the person has or will commit a crime. (Migrants: no need to give examples, just read the news. Trans people: 'you just want access to 'our spaces'' (i.e. the spaces where women/cis women enjoy their privacy from all men, cis or trans) so you can assault us'.

• both minimize or even deny, the need for the transition: 'No child is born trans/those parents were homophobic as the kid was just gay/trans women are men with their dicks lopped off/people should stay in their home country and migration is too dangerous'.

• both hysterically fear that the trans person/migrant will corrupt innocents: 'they will indoctrinate children in school/they will spread religious fundamentalism'.

Gender critical women: ask yourself if you've been radicalized into the new right.

Canada

This from Canada;

''Poll reveals Canadian trans policies that are out of step with public opinion''

''Canadians favour equality for trans people, but generally don't believe in gender self-identification, survey shows''

35 per cent agreed...that “anyone who wishes can identify as a woman.”

(34 per cent) sided with the notion that women are only those “who were born with female genitalia.”

18 per cent were comfortable with the idea of men legally becoming women, but only if they changed their genitalia through surgery.

(52 per cent) are not on board with a recent spate of Canadian legal reforms upholding the principle of gender self-ID

a clear majority of Canadians opposed to the adoption of “gender neutral” terminology [67 per cent]

66 per cent disagreed with the statement “everyone should put their pronouns in their social media profiles.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/angus-reid-poll-transgender-policies-canada

I think there is more recent polling from Canada too, I will look.

Everyone starts out with sex organs. The organs of their own sex.

If they have had those amputated or excised or reconfigured or otherwise mutilated that is very sad. Anything stitched on or added will not be a sex organ.

The sex organs they started out with are the only sex organs they will ever have.

The truth is, I don't yet know. I've been thinking about this for a long time and still haven't made up my mind about a few aspects of this complicated situation.

There is nothing remotey complicated about the situation, you and others like you are deliberatey trying to make it complicated for reasons known only to yourselves but in my opinion are rooted in misogyny and homophobia.

Everybody on this forum is certain. Dead certain. Xx Is female and Xy Is male. There is only this. There is no gender. Usage of a sexed space must rest entirely on the makeup of your blood: your chromosomes.

Spaces and some services are delineated on the basis of SEX for obvious and prefectly reasonable reasons - safeguarding being one reason - not on gender which is a concept that has more definitions than I have had hot dinners.

I find this reductive, naive and discriminatory. It forces people to use spaces designed for their sex at birth when they might have been identifying otherwise for decades. It might terribly humiliating not to mention risky, to walk into that space and be a target for bigots or macho drunk guys. But this, you say, is the price of your kind of absolutism. (The fact that it is someone else's price to pay, and not yours, is just by the by).

It is not in the least discriminatory, reductive or naive. Everybody is either one of the only two sexes there are in the human species. The law has been clarified that people of one sex should never have been using faciities and services for the other sex and nor should they ever have had any expectation of so doing. As said above those spaces are provided on the basis of sex not identity.

You don't think it is humilating or risky for women and girls to be expected/forced to undress in front of men or boys when they do not want to? You don't think women and girls have the right to consent whom they remove their clothes in front of or who they toilet alongside?

Women and girls have already paid a high price due to single sex spaces and services being in breach of the law.

Many transwomen already access the male single sex services and are happy to report absolutely zero problems doing so and there are absolutey NO reports anywhere (and believe me I have searched extensively) of transwomen being at any risk or being attacked using the services that correspond to their sex.

While I'm sure of all this, I'm not sure how it should work if somebody identifies as trans and feels trans but hadn't made any changes to their outward appearance or biology. Can it pave the way for a mass invasion of women's spaces? I doubt it but I am not as sure as you all seem to be about your position. You put all trans people together; I suspect there might be different rights of access and usage but I know I'm setting myself up for a virtual bloodbath here.

How? How would this work? The simplest solution is the solution that has always been the case that where spaces and services are required to be segregated on the basis of sex they are with no exceptions. Should trans people feel unable to access the spaces and services for their sex the onus is on them to campaign for alternative, additional provision.

Trans women competing with born-women in sport? Another thing I'm still trying to learn about so I can form a meaningful opinion. Not there yet. My daughter was regularly beaten by a trans girl when they were little: I didn't love it and interestingly, nor did the mother particularly. There's that. Unlike most on here, I am not an absolutist and I don't think this is simple.

Both you and the mother of the trans girl clearly weren't that bothered or you would have done something about it. What a lesson to teach your daughter that they are not entitled to fairness and their mother won't fight for it on her behalf, that your daughter must place herself second to the feelings and desires of the male sex. Fabulous.

But you should have. You're vocal enough telling us how abhorrent you find our opinions on the subject so at least be honest with yourself if not us.

Is it OK for a fully intact man with a fully working cock to be in women only spaces?

Then what exactly do you think you are contributing to the discussion?

"Should women have the right to a few penis free spaces in this world?" is a pretty fundamental question.

“Then what exactly do you think you are contributing to the discussion?”

Looking back through the OP’s constant stream of snide posts, I don’t believe that the OP wanted to contribute anything but belittling and berating a group of people they have deep prejudice about yet doesn’t seem to actually understand the points of views expressed by.

I think this OP is here for belittling and demonising that they are delivering. After all, the OP seems to believe women who don’t want male people in their single sex provisions are akin to fascists from
what I can interpret from their first post.

What becomes apparent is that this OP is ill informed and blinded by their own prejudices.

Perhaps you could give it some thought before wading in to scold us. Maybe use some of the time you currently spend on perpetuating North American cultural imperialism.

Nobody is forced to strip naked in a public place. This is an extreme example.

If the absence of private changing facilities are an issue where you live than please campaign for gender neutral ones. When we do so TRAs disagree and still use women's facilities.

I suspect bad faith argument / hunting for flaws in same sex policies because you've also mentioned "insulting trans women by trying to keep them out of female space (ie. treating them like men)".

So you clearly believe that transwomen are women and should be in women's spaces.

?

The UK certainly isn't unique in having people/parties on the left who are GC. Off the top of my head, Sahra Wagenknecht's movement in Germany or the Communist Parties in Greece and the Czech Republic. Generally, those bits of the left that didn't abandon their working class base in favour of becoming the representatives of the PMC class.

They're not massive forces, and might not appeal if you're a moderate social democrat rather than a communist, but they're not insignificant either.

And of course, once you get outside the Anglosphere countries and Western Europe, the TRA grip on what we'd consider "the left" is much reduced. It's what in China they call a baizuo (literally "white left"; more idiomatically "virtue signalling cultural liberal") issue.

And of course, once you get outside the Anglosphere countries and Western Europe, the TRA grip on what we'd consider "the left" is much reduced. It's what in China they call a baizuo (literally "white left"; more idiomatically "virtue signalling cultural liberal") issue.

Baizuo is a beautifully precise and accurate expression. I know people, particularly women "allies" who would mouth TWAW, who would be extremely uncomfortable and unhappy with a male-bodied person in a space where they felt vulnerable. It is this aspect of maleness that so many TRAs, including OP, have a complete blind spot for.

You wrote:

'You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep'.

Your opposition to GC women puts you on the same side as the Iranian regime and Nigel Farage. If a principle is true of the women on FWR, its true of you too.

Or you could just not apply an adolescent level of analysis, since inevitably you're going to agree with the worst people in history about some issues.

You wrote:

'You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep'.

Your opposition to GC women puts you on the same side as the Iranian regime and Nigel Farage. If a principle is true of the women on FWR, its true of you too.

Or you could just not apply an adolescent level of analysis, since inevitably you're going to agree with the worst people in history about some issues.

How convenient.

Anyway. If you want willyless men to be treated differently to the bewillied, I'm not sure why you are here shouting at us.

Go and talk to the Good Laugh Project and take your case to the ECHR and get them to overturn existing case law.

Whilst you are at it have a chat with Ann Widdecombe about why her position is unlawful too.

How about this from NZ six months after Jacinda Ahern was PM.

https://thefacts.nz/transgender-issues/

KEY INSIGHTS
Based on this poll:

7:1 Kiwis believe that gender choice and transition techniques should not be taught in primary school.

5:1 Kiwis believe that transgender girls should not be allowed to play in female sports (and vice versa).

4:1 Kiwis believe that teachers should not lose their teaching licence for misgendering a student.

2:1 Kiwis believe that we should ban puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries for children <18.

But... apparently.. the UK is unusual in its stance? Like fuck it is.

Or... maybe... when specifically asked about the degree to which people 'support' male people accessing female single sex provisions, ie. spaces, sports and services, people tend to expect female single sex provisions to remain single 'sex' with nothing to do with 'gender'.

There is always a difference between asking someone if they 'support' people with transgender identities and actually putting that support to test with direct questions about sports and male people being in single sex spaces.

Here is Kirralee Smith from Binary's poll

https://www.binary.org.au/binary_poll_australians_want_protections_for_women_s_sports

Look at the result from the Labor Party voters, looking not so dissimilar to the rest. And in my opinion the Labor Party and the Liberal Party tend to be to the left of the equivalent UK two party options.

But... yeah.... UK women are SO radicalised by the right wing, and people saying that the view human's cannot change sex is a universal belief are just going to say something stupid next.

Seriously, @Manfreglory. Did you do ANY fucking research before starting this snide and belittling thread? Any? At all?

Or are your forays onto FWR your only escapes out of your bubble.

Gender is just stereotypes. The idea that we are assigned a 'gender' at birth instead of just having our sex observed is massively sexist.
Women are not a set of stereotypes that men get to role play as because they 'feel' like it. We are actual human beings.
Your entire initial post is just a huge straw man. You really can't post something that assumes so much in such incredible bad faith and then go 'aha' when people roll their eyes and don't engage.

The thing is that TRAs of the Owen Jones variety rely on high level questions like "should people be allowed to identify as their preferred gender?", to which most people will shrug their shoulders and say "yeah why not", and then extrapolate from that public support for a whole raft of quite radical policies.

We saw from polling during the GRR Bill debate in Scotland that once you spelled out the meaning of self-ID, by asking things like "should biological males with penises be able to enter women's single sex spaces?" that the "yeah why not" response dropped off a cliff, and the more people heard about the issue the less they supported it.

And this is supported by the obfuscatory language that transactivism goes in for, so when parents are told by their daughter's school that "our policy is that trans girls should use the girls' changing room", many parents think "oh well that obviously means girls who want to be boys, that makes sense, it's not as if actual boys with cocks will be showering with our DD", and then those parents become extremely irate when they find out the school has been misleading them.

If I were hired to advise transactivists I'd actively show them polling that's uncomfortable for them and say "your current demands have 20% support max, probably less because of social desirability bias, maybe if you moderate your demands and change your messaging you can convert that 20% into 30%". But they'd never hire me because they prefer to live in an ideological bubble.

Ummm no. A female cannot have male sex organs. You’re just being silly now.

I believe that a group of extreme transgender activists in the USA attempted to moderate the public demands and actions of some male people with transgender identities. It didn't go further than a post or two about if we 'appeared' more reasonable maybe we would start to regain our support.

I think it was around the time of the WPATH files leak.

Some Democratic Party thought leaders tried this too. I have heard no more about it.

Matt Yglesias, who is often about nine months ahead of the curve in US liberal thinking, said the same a few years ago.

The outcome was that Yglesias's lifelong friend Ezra Klein fired him from Vox Media after the resident TIM at Vox threw an enormous strop and demanded that Yglesias be fired. Lots of people noticed this.

I believe there are lots of influential American liberals who are terrified of angry TIMs. Ezra Klein is probably one of them. His recent interview with trans-identified Congressperson Sarah McBride dealt with some similar issues ("perhaps we could achieve our obviously correct goals better with a more moderate tone") but I couldn't miss how much Klein was fawning on McBride and didn't want to get one millimetre ahead of how moderate McBride was prepared to be.

I might regret asking this and I don't want to Google it, but when transmen do in fact have surgery to the nether regions, how does this really work? - and indeed does "it" really work?

The tissue that has been attached to the groin has a very stretched urethra inserted. Remembering also that (if I remember correctly) Testosterone causes significant urethra and bladder issues.

That tube of tissue will only ever inflate if a manual pump is attached. I believe that there is a huge failure rate for this surgery with many negative health impacts that are lasting.

Including significant issues at the tissue harvest site as well.

So, does it 'work'? If the purpose of a penis is only to pee out of, maybe. If it is to become erect with pumping because there is no erectile tissue at all there ...

Of course, that penis does not provide a conduit and distribution of small gametes in anyway as there are no small gametes being ever produced in that female body.

Thanks.

Sounds horrible.