How is the trans issue ever going to be resolved?

[PassportPanicFuuuck]

It seems as insoluble as the Israel/Palestine question when the two "sides" want directly opposing things. I've heard the arguments that trans people "just want to pee" and that "no-one would go through medical/surgical gender reassignment purely to abuse women", plus the mantras that "trans people exist", "trans rights are human rights" and "trans women are women" and it's quite clear that the people who believe these things fervently aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to a certain extent, life isn't fair. Not everyone does have equal opportunities. If you're in a gay relationship (and there's nothing wrong with that) you can't have a biological child with your partner; if you're infertile (as I am) you can't have a child at all; if you're trans (and there's nothing wrong with that either) you can't enter the spaces of the opposite sex; if you're British you don't have an automatic right to go and live in the US; if you're short and unsporty you don't have a right to be on the Olympic basketball team - and so on. All sorts of opportunities are denied people at various different points, some as a result of decisions you make (like not studying for a medical degree means I can never be a doctor) and some not (see above re. infertility), and beyond universal human rights you don't have a right - one might say "entitlement" - to an awful lot of things, much as you might keenly want them.

Like it or not, once we end up in these categories we have to accept it. Absolutely no-one is eligible to do everything or to go everywhere. However if you have made a choice - even if you consider it to be more a recognition of something innate rather than a conscious decision - it doesn't mean that you have made this choice on behalf of everyone else. If you have chosen to transition (again, you may not consider it to be a "choice") you can't dictate that everyone else ignore biology and logic and linguistic authenticity and you can't dictate that everyone else will want to celebrate your decision. No, we don't have to accept the "lady bulge", we don't have to accept child abuse under the guise of gender-affirming care and we don't have to accept men in female sports / changing rooms / organisations.

Not sure how coherently worded all the above is, but perhaps it will provoke some interesting debate.

This is indeed true.

'Gender fluidity' will, I predict, be detrimental to the political agenda to allow male people into single sex provisions.

It is actually pretty hilarious to see someone think that gender fluidity will magically change female people to being inclusive of male people in single sex spaces. The logic will be completely blown around gender identities if 'gender fluidity becomes pedestrian'.

Because it completely undermines transgender identities being not only 'innate' but a stable concept to base laws and policies allowing male people access to female single sex provisions on. It is diametrically opposed to building those policies and laws on. No one is going to say to female people, today you will undress in front of this person, but tomorrow they will revert back to being male and will be in the male single sex changing room and expect a policy that upholds that in the future.

Instead it will be anyone who is not comfortable with the single sex provision that is provided for their sex will have to use mixed sex provisions or find an alternative solution. Pretty much what it is now....

Gender non conformity should be encouraged! But not the false belief that an identity based on gender stereotypes or beliefs should take priority over sex when sex matters.

We ask because we never actually get an answer to this.

When I first heard the expression Transhuman a few years back I thought it was something to do with people who wanted to upload their consciousness to the Singularity. I thought it was a wacky idea, and then I found out what 'trans' was and I realised I had done the singularity nerds an injustice, they weren't the maddest people on the planet after all. 😂

So adult women should ignore paraphilias on the internet.

Children will get used to to seeing them and consider them normal eventually.

Then all of the men can pretend their paraphilias are just expressions of gender fluidity and perform then whenever and where ever they want.

Lovely.

Accept they are even lying to themselves. What they like about their paraphilias is that they are shocking. If society did start seeing their behaviour as normal, they would escalate.

Or maybe they do know this?

Yes, there was an ambulance-chasing lawyer who proposed families should sue the Tavistock but it didn't take off because that's just not how things work in the UK. It is how the US rocks though, and there compensation cases are slowly gathering momentum towards court. Slowly because it's not legally simple and first they have to dismantle some of the restrictions about timing.

But even in UK the puberty blocker trial is quite a financial risk for the NHS. Going ahead with it now that we know even as much as we already know about the likely long-term outcomes of taking puberty blockers, there will probably be some almighty compensation claims 10 years down the line for any youngster who takes part in the trial. But I suspect the government now doesn't care about the risk of even ginormous financial claims in 10 years time. It's what sounds good now that matters.

There is a case starting in New York this week and another in Oregon by the end of January that are considered the test cases for the USA. It is expected that there will be an influx of cases there if these cases go as expected and that the clinicians will be held accountable.

Having seen just what mental health harm cases like this cause the claimants, I consider anyone who follows a legal path to be very brave. And I would not be mocking any group for not taking a legal route. In fact, I consider that mocking to be based on complete ignorance of what these cases personally cost vulnerable people in terms of mental health.

I didn't read PPs comments about online content as telling women to ignore things on the internet. It's important for people to realise what you look at with without reporting blocking will come more your way whether you engage with it or not by liking or commenting for example. And it does drive ad revenue which encourages more content. Misogynistic content is rife enough online, when we encounter the best thing to do is be blocking/reporting/ complaining every single time, as even passively viewing it only tells the algorithm that people like this content make more, they don't care or track if people are watching it with disgust or disapproval they will just track that you don't give feedback that you aren't interested or that you don't report it the content and you will get more and more sent your way. Not everyone is familiar with how these sites and apps work, it's definitely worth reminding..

I'm not sure I understand what the course of action you and PP are recommending will achieve, you can't wish away the nasty, even if every decent person who uses the internet does what you suggest this stuff won't disappear. It will still be available to the sicko's, where there's a demand they'll be a supply.

Reporting content I don't want to see has not removed it from my algorithm at all. The only way to be 'safe' is to restrict your interaction to only people you have followed or stop using a particular platform. As posters have pointed out to the pp who declared that we should just stop searching for it.

Yes, reporting and blocking works to some extent, but I still get crap that I don't want to see or read all the time. It is what you accept when you access content on a social media platform. And of course it produces revenue for sites. If people are using the internet without understanding how revenue to sites and platforms work by now, they do indeed need to learn how this works.

However, people will also continue to produce self published porn regardless of whether people interact because it is often the exhibition that counts for those publishing paraphilic content. It is not appropriate to tell women who are discussing these paraphilic men that they are responsible for the content by telling us we 'searched' for it when there is no need to 'search' for it. If you are looking at content relating to gender identity, you will come across it without searching.

Some posters are very keen to portray women discussing these issues as being the issue.

I'm not suggesting it will "wish away the nasty" I'm just saying the facts of how the internet works which is what you engage with will get tracked as consuming which in turn encourages more of it to be produced. Yes it'll be available to the sickos, everything is particularly on the unmoderated internet, but on any reputable app or website continued reporting and blocking and nor consuming should get the users posting it removed. By engaging with it you are effectively "wishing more of the nasty"

Which algorithm are you referring to our of interest? If you've blocked certain content you should be able to complain if it's coming on your feed but it depends where you're referring to. Any mainstream social media this content isn't allowed (within the UK anyway) so absolutely will be deleted on reporting. I don't think I've said anything anywhere about anyone searching anything, I'm simply explaining that I agree with PPs explanation that even passively "viewing" counts as engagement which encourages more revenue and content and encourages the algorithm to send more your way. Not everyone knows this and it surely is helpful info for women to know how to get this off their feed. I can honestly say I read a lot of GC and gender content and I don't get see any porn or fetish content, but it depends what you're using I suppose and what blocks you've got in place as I long ago blocked anything of that nature back when Twitter had porn under almost every tweet going.
To be clear once again women talking about it aren't the issue, but I would encourage those who want to research it don't go directly to source. Read articles or journals or anywhere else you can access data of the prevalence of it. If you go looking at misogynistic content unfortunately you're just fueling it as another "consumer" regardless of why you're consuming it.

If a man wearing a teen's knickers stolen off the washing line jerks off in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does he spunk all over a schoolgirl's stolen underwear?

Have you tried living life without Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Tiktok in 2026? I do and it's not easy. So many people, businesses, snd support groups use these platforms as alternatives to running their own website or forum. There are events and service providers I miss out on because I don't see them because I'm not on Facebook. There are support groups that I cannot join because I am not on Facebook.

The men love this functionality. For men, it's not a bug, it's a feature. When women leave a platform, it becomes an all-male echo chamber in which the worst misogyny thrives unchallenged.

TRAs have only got to give a coherent, non-circular definition once. Yet you've so far collectively failed to do so, which is why we keep asking.

Given that GIDS at Tavistock has been closed down, how would people go about suing an entity that no longer exists?

We are seeing now lawsuits in the US.

Yes (not used for decades), yes (not used since that white supremacist who wants overthrow our system of democracy took over) no, yes (have never used).

YouTube only suggests me stuff it thinks I'm interested in based on past searches/watches; empirically not a problem if you don't search/watch certain material.

What is this 'LGBT community'? The one that threw out all the homosexual people who wouldn't genuflect at the gender altar and swear to do straight sex on command while pretending for the straight person it wasn't? It continues to be as stupid as thring all the actual vegans out of a vegan group and then insisting that all vegans in your vegan group love and eat meat.

The only real issue in all this is men wanting into women's spaces. Setting aside the mutilation and sterilising of kids, the women's spaces is the issue. Weigh up the human rights and reasonability of 'I demand access to non consenting women in a state of undress'?

It's not reasonable. It's not right, it's not ethical, it's not morally ok, there is nothing right about it in any way.

None of these allow explicit sexual content or sexual content that is meant to be gratifying (in the UK, can't comment on elsewhere) hence why every instance should be reported for removal

That is a feature of platforms that actively welcomes Nazis back. It's not worth fighting over one that does that until it press back standards worthy of the name and I'm very happy to surrender that to "men" who want to associate with Nazis.

Camille Paglia has written about this a bit. Her thesis was that sex/gender/sexuality confusions are a sign of decadent, degenerating civilizations whose days are numbered. And that we are in that place now.

No idea if MN will remove this but I've reported this comment. Whether you are describing content you've seen somewhere or not, I and others don't need this kind of graphic content described about underage people without our consent on a discussion forum. I don't care whether sickos post such content online elsewhere, I don't consent to your graphic pedophilic example as part of normal discourse and it existing doesn't excuse that

Short answer: yes.

If you don't look at it, and don't let people say it, it didn't happen.

And as usual: women are evil if they DO point it out, and if they don't, then obviously they didn't care about it. And they must never, however provoked or mistreated, be less than absolutely professional and naice at all times with full careful awareness of other people's needs and feelings on the one anonymous forum where they are permitted to voice these thoughts at all.

"Don't look at it if you don't like it"

I thought that was the approach we were meant to be following?

Um a quick read of my post very clearly says I recommend people report inappropriate sexual content online, as I just did. There is a way to talk about disgusting content online without sounding exactly like the people who would post such content. Anyone talking about semen with that word and underage people's underwear is wrong imo and I've reported it as inappropriate,.it's literally worded in a way that the same sickos who get a kick out of it would speak.

Once again passively viewing inappropriate sexual content online and not reporting it is the same as endorsing it hence why I didn't just say "don't look".