More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

[ConstanzeMozart]

fuckwittery
the EHRC ‘insisting’ on single-sex toilets excluding trans people.
Well, only if they try to use the one for the wrong sex.
There are also some bingo points including trans people being excluded from public life, and women who don’t look feminine being harassed in the Ladies.

It's not a broad category, it's what we call one of the two types of homo sapiens. It's distinguished from the only other type of human by biology, which is immutable, and not subject to change by wishing on stars.

I think men are more superficial in their detectition ability when it comes to sex signifiers, as they tend to objectify female/ bodies and body parts and turn them into fetishes. But women generally have far better sex recognition skills that are anything but superficial. We all know the difference between implants and actual breasts, for example, ( whereas i suspect many men cannot tell apart); and we are far better at reading all of the other physical clues as they relate to sex.

There s no such thing as a 'cis' person outside of transgender ideology. We are all either male or female, though as individuals we may choose to dress or present in any number of ways according to our preferences and/or temperament.

Understanding the biology of human sex is not a moral panic.

Not playing along with fetishistic men pretending to be women (even if they believe it themselves) is not a moral panic.

These silly and transparent attempts to pretend that not believing magical thinking comes from a deficiency in the GC side just makes trans activists appear to be thick and dishonest.

All movements start off small at a 'fringe' grassroots level, and then grow as more people become informed and aware. Human beings are social creatures and if they become aware of an obvious social development they will form a view on it and a view of how they may or may not fit into it. The fact is this issue that motivates so many of us here is a now a mainstream issue on which every politician and member of the public must form a view.

This is not a one generation issue.....it may well have been picked up first by an older generation of feminists - in the main....but it is now an issue for comment for everyone; and younger generations coming up are no longer really part of the generational trend that launched upon trans rights in the first place. Activists teachers who push this stuff are often given short-shrift by their pupils.
Each new generation is caught up in new trends and movements. 'Trans' is fairly old hat now.....kids are moving on. It's all ADHD now, squeeze balls, and the digital circus. And younger generations seem to be becoming far more conservative and cautious than they might once have been,

Referring to people's genuine concerns as 'moral panics' is very dismissive, as is referring to people as 'bigots' and 'phobes' when they don't toe the party line. This is, in large part, what has contributed to the rise in populist parties and movements such as MAGA and Reform.

Dispositions are not 'biological' they are social and psychological. Discrimination means being able to tell one thing apart from another. We all know the difference between male and female, even if we pretend not to, or disagree on why these differences persist.

I notice Eva Wiseman uses the phrase "women who are pregnant" Doesn't she know that according to TRAs that's a transphobic phrase?

It's almost like she only has a superficial grasp of what exactly TRAs are demanding, and why women are objecting 🤔

to be fair most of the TRA I see on here "only has a superficial grasp of what exactly TRAs are demanding, and why women are objecting 🤔"

I think that is because each TRA on here has his own obsessively focused interests at heart and doesn't give a shiny shit what anyone else, including other TRAs, wants.

I have to admit to a wry grin whenever one of them floats the idea that there exists a set of empirical criteria yet to be defined that they are quite quite sure will give them a woman ticket and to hang with the other 99% of men who would sadly find themselves ticketless

I'm sure they think their particular constellation of data points will compute to a lady ticket, but...

The machine would be like Marlo and say "You want it to be one way... but it's the other way."

You don't half talk some rot. It gets traction whenever people realise that what transactivists demand has real life negative impacts on women, on relatives of trans people, and sometimes on trans people themselves. Believe me, most of us (perhaps all of us) here have personal experience of the negative impact of trans demands.

That is what has motivated us to educate ourselves on queer theory and how trans people expect society to re-form itself around their wants, not right wing media (who frankly have been very late to recognise the problems).

Don't you dare dismiss our experiences of family destruction and the sight of our children damaging their own health in the pursuit of the impossible; the sheer injustice of women's spaces being forcibly turned into mixed spaces; the sheer injustice of women's sporting achievements being stolen from them; the sheer injustice of women being dragged through disciplinary procedures at work for complaining about being required to change their clothing in front of men; the sheer injustice of being cancelled for being truthful.

Moral panic? We are talking about people having suicidal thoughts, losing their loved ones to a cult, losing their livelihoods unjustly, and you dismiss our experiences as "moral panic". How very kind the trans allies and trans-identifying people often turn out to be.

That they can’t keep their story straight in their demands and claims is telling of an ideology that is not well-formed.

I see that trans activist on this thread is back to pretending that we can’t tell what sex someone is and trying again to play the dishonest game of conflating the difference what defines sex (which gametes the phenotype is organised to support) and what determines it (a functioning SRY.)

Both Canadian & Australian have exemptions under specific circumstances for cis women that work fine.

Has it occured to you that most people are probably centre right on social and cultural issues.

No because that's not true.

The left like the right isn't a monolith. The overwhelming majority would not want open borders rather sustainable & orderly immigration as opposed to the new right who's real issue isn't sustainable & orderly immigration but being racially replaced.

As far as knowing the difference between sex, most people are far less likely to dehumanise, demonise & discriminate against trans people which is the exclusive purview of the far right. So no, most aren't centre right on trans people's basic rights.

and they don't like being shamed and shunned because they don't like the totalitarianism of progressive identity politics.

Most people aren't being shamed & shunned because most people aren't invested in this issue. You are exaggerating the public interest in this issue.

A moral panic is an exaggerated public fear that a specific group or behaviour threatens a society's core values and interests.

In other words, you are over cooking the impact here particularly given its 0.5% of people involved.

Don't YOU dare dictate to others on the validity of their identity & exaggerate the impact.

The irony.

Don’t you dare tell women that a man with a fetish is one of them and to be tolerated.

And don't you dare dictate to others that (using your stats) you are over cooking the impact here particularly given its 0.5% of people involved when those 0.5% of people are trampling on the rights of 52% of the population to safety, privacy and dignity.

Yeah they "trample" 0.5% of the time being the point.

PS You don't get to speak for all women so 52% is a false total.

One man thinking he has the right to access women's spaces can have an impact on countless women.

All womem deserve their rights to single sex spaces upheld. If they don't want to exercise those rights, that's up to them, but there may well come a time when they're glad they exist.

You've raised a really good point. Why don't we look at data.

If women's concerns were about "trans people existing" then 0.5% might be a sensible number to refer to.

But it's not. Mostly, women's concerns are about harms to safety, dignity and fairness.

Let's for a moment grant your (rather silly) contention that removing of rights from a group does not count as a harm, only specific instances of harm.

Does a transwoman commit more or less sexual crime than the average woman, for example?

(This is relevant because often we're considering how adding transwomen to a group previously restricted to women changes the risk profile).

By roughly what multiple? Up or down?

@Baileyonice -- I've got some numbers for you.

Let's go with 0.5% of the pop is trans (I don't know how accurate this is, but it's your figure). So let's say about 130,000 adult transwomen.

MoJ figures (Nov 2023): between 95 and 99 trans-identifying male prisoners without a GRC (so this is probably an undercount) are in for a primarily sexual offence.

That is 1 in 1,313 of transwomen currently in prison for a sexual offence.

Total adult female population about 27,000,000.

MoJ figures: female prisoners serving for a primarily sexual offence: 150.

That is 1 in 180,000 women currently in prison for a sexual offence.

So, a 137x difference in sexual offence rate on those numbers.

This also means that 95/245 = 39% of the group of "women+" (i.e. women plus trans-identifying-males-without-GRC) prisoners in for a sexual offence are trans women.

At all stages of the calculation, I've hedged in your favour (haven't adjusted for GRC-holders, used the lower number provided by the MoJ).

At what level does it become acceptable to be concerned about this?