Trans Liberation Group

[BlueLegume]

The MP Zarah Sultana of Your Party has posed with a new group called The Trans Liberation Group. All fine if she truly believes men can be women. The group are active on X with a small following. They have a website. https://transliberationgroup.org.uk

They are also targeting students at universities to join Your Party. Again all fine if politics is the motive. Call me a cynic but I think students are very vulnerable and easily sucked into politics that look different. It feels like these Trans Liberation Group are trying to be less TRA and more mainstream. Either way they may suck in vulnerable groups.

I also find ZS somewhat disingenuous. She raves about Palestine but rails against Israel. She does know that Palestine and Hamas would not support her stance on Trans people surely?

Apologies @Greyskybluesky I am happy to try and understand all of this better. In all honesty if you or someone else can help me comprehend better I am very open to listening.

"Cis people get their preference, trans people don't. That's discrimination based on gender."

No, "cis" people do not get their preference. Someone could be "cis" (your term, not mine) and prefer the toilets of the opposite sex. They're still not allowed to go in them.

I’d be surprised if she means you. We’ve been infested by a poster who craps nonsense all over threads. If you don’t know who that is then it’s not you!

No no no not you!

The comprehension gap is with the resident derailer who has now appeared to deliberately derail debate on your very interesting thread.

Edited to add: ...this person is best ignored, but it's hard to do so when such imbecilic statements are made

I think @Greyskybluesky was talking about the derailer Howse, not you @BlueLegume

I hope the keep toilets safe poster who has amazing knowledge and safeguarding advice about the reasons for single sex facilities sees this thread and clarifies the absolute nonsense being spouted by howse.

"Sex-based scenario: no-one has the choice."

Seriously?Please.

"Prison policy, for example, allowing trans-identifying people to choose which estate they entered but not permitting that to prisoners generally."

False. ALL prisoners are supposed to be subjected to risk assessment in housing. That some trans women are housed in women's estate is a function of them not being deemed a safety risk. That occasionally the prison system errs in implementing their safety policy is a management issue.

Yep! There are plenty of men who would much prefer to go in the changing rooms where women are getting naked than the men’s, and some men who’d prefer to go in the changing rooms where children are getting naked rather than the men’s

That is one of the reasons they’re not allowed 🙄

And for the benefit of any lurkers, the Supreme Court judgement, referred to above, clarified a law which has existed for years, it didn’t change anything

Yes I will also reiterate what the poster above me has said, that the supreme court did not change the law, it was clarified, therefore what Dr Upton did was wrong, but it was the whole of NHS Fife who were wrong in misinterpreting the law and allowing a male person to go into female changing rooms.

Yep! There are plenty of men who would much prefer to go in the changing rooms where women are getting naked than the men’s, and some men who’d prefer to go in the changing rooms where children are getting naked rather than the men’s

Exactly!
I've encountered a man in a women's toilet who thought he could act on his "preference". I'm sure many of us here have.

Hence the law.

The equality act has been in place for 15 years before the very recent legal clarification & nary a whisper about public utilities being problematic for women until the last few years of media beat up.

This isn't a grass roots concern let alone a long standing one.

No, they’re suggesting that Hamas is vehemently opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism.

…..

Anywayyyy...back to the OP.

The list of demands at https://transliberationgroup.org.uk/demands/ is quite something. I haven't the time to address them now, but a number are totally unrealistic and assume a bottomless pit of money. I guess they need to find some billionaire bankrollers quick.

@Howseitgoin
"Sex-based scenario: no-one has the choice."

Seriously?Please.

Yes, seriously. You think people choose their sex?

You are profoundly confused on basic points of this issue.

Safety assessment is related but distinct. We can see the disparity by holding risk constant in both cases: trans-identified people under that policy have a choice that non-trans people do not.

But you are making the case that the “fourth case” applies generally.

Name just your top two or three examples of where non-trans people get to choose either facility but trans people are banned from doing so. Hell, name one.

@Greyskybluesky will be only to happy to help you understand that she would prefer you maintain an echo chamber like environment lest challenging opinions 'derail' the thread.

In terms of trans people that varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the UK trans people don't have the right to use basic public utilities of their choice like everyone else however that is being legally tested & given the logistic nightmare its creating may well change
No person, regardless of how they identify, has the right to use the public utilities of their choice - they do have the right to use public utilities which is provided for their sex.

The same rights as in freedom of choice isn't the same as wanting more rights
Luckily in the UK everyone has the same rights legally.

There is a legal right to be protected from certain forms of discrimination in both national & human rights law
Your point is?

The incidents alleged by Dr Upton happened before the UK Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law
The SC didn’t make the law - they confirmed the law introduced under the Equality Act. Any institution that allows men to invade single sex female spaces has been breaking the law for years.

Women have been saying no for years. Men just haven’t been listening.

Ha haa! Bingo! The old "echo chamber" accusation.

Just to correct you, I do not want an echo chamber. I want intelligent argument and debate that's on topic.

If only your contributions were "challenging" on the actual issues. You spout your ill-informed opinions all over people's threads that they've started in good faith. You cannot help yourself. Why this need to make other people's threads all about you? If you have something groundbreaking to say, why not start your own threads.

"Yes, seriously. You think people choose their sex?"

Wow, this is even getting more bizarre.
Um, whether people 'choose their sex' or not at conception is irrelevant to their preference after they are born.

"Safety assessment is related but distinct. We can see the disparity by holding risk constant in both cases: trans-identified people under that policy have a choice that non-trans people do not."

Personal preferences are irrelevant to prison housing whose priority is safety not providing luxury resort satisfaction.

it wasn’t the media that beat me up and raped me. It was a man.

and men - in the U.K. - are
legitimately excluded from women’s single sex spaces.

if trans people don’t like that they need to campaign for a fourth space - not a third, the disabled is the third. And I will support that. What I will not support is men in women’s single sex spaces. Those men who do that are trampling on a boundary and that tells me quite a lot about them.

What is a biddie exactly?

"Yes, seriously. You think people choose their sex?"
Wow, this is even getting more bizarre.
Um, whether people 'choose their sex' or not at conception is irrelevant to their preference after they are born.

You are losing the thread of your own argument. I stated that under a sex-based system, no-one gets to choose which facilities they use. You found this extraordinary, but in fact it's a natural consequence of the fact that no-one can choose their sex. Regardless of anyone's preferences, a rule that separates by sex is a system that does not allow for choice, because sex is not chosen.

This shouldn't be a struggle for you.

"Safety assessment is related but distinct. We can see the disparity by holding risk constant in both cases: trans-identified people under that policy have a choice that non-trans people do not."
Personal preferences are irrelevant to prison housing whose priority is safety not providing luxury resort satisfaction.

I agree that's how it should be. No-one, whether trans-identified or not, should be offered a choice of whether they enter the male or female estate. The fact that this is not how it operated in practice was wrong. In practice, trans-identified prisoners are given a choice that non-trans-identified people are not.

I don't know if you follow the news much, but when the Isla Bryson case blew up in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon's explanation for why he should not have been in the woman's estate was, that he was "almost certainly not genuine". i.e., trans people have an option that non-trans people do not, and he'd pretended to be trans to access that option. This is a clear example of my "third case", i.e. "self-ID but only for trans".

Anyway -- putting my blocker on now as I need to get some work done.

If you do manage to come up with any example of the fourth case, you might make some headway persuading others on the board. So far, though, half an hour and several replies in and you haven't managed to give even one single example of the thing you claim is the general case.

I think you are someone who thinks that their beliefs proceed from the evidence and reason. This should be shifting your priors significantly.

Reluctant as I am to engage with the thread derailer however I have decided to dip my toe in.

I started this thread partly because of what has happened at the BBC. Yes the Trump edit is being pushed as the main reason and in itself is appalling this happened. I also started the thread as it feels like a moment where gender critical people can stand up with less fear of being called bigots based on the IOC ruling regarding trans athletes not being able to compete in female sports. Common sense has prevailed. Women have been listed to.

I hope when the Michael Prescott report is published in full the issue of trans and how the BBC has handled its use of language etc is laid bare. Seen in journalism have put out a new podcast reflecting on the resignations at the BBC.

It outlines many issues around how trans stories were batted away by various desks.

So @Howseitgoin firstly I am not in an echo chamber - lazy on your part in my opinion to suggest I am. When the trans activists ramped up their campaigns they literally used ‘no debate’ as a tagline. Why?

As one of my earlier posts stated I am gender critical. I do not believe anyone can change sex but I am adult enough to appreciate some people feel they need to present as the opposite sex. That is fine - just appreciate my space as my space and respect that as a biological female I want privacy away from men, however they present.

I am also interested in your understanding of AGP men. They seem to have exploded, no pun intended, into the workplace and society over the past 10 to 15 years. Why? If you want to cross dress fill your boots. But dragging, pun intended, it into every day life is pushing boundaries especially where children are concerned and the ‘be kind’ mantra has been used as a virtue signal that if we don’t accept what is at some level a fetish then we are ‘unkind’.

That would be true if this poster was arguing in good faith.