If 65.5% of trans people say they are non-binary how are they trans and why are they bothered by the Supreme Court ruling

[IwantToRetire]

This figure of 65.5% of trans people saying this is said to come from EU LGBTIQ Survey III.

Which just made me think that if that is the current or even future trend of "trans identity", then the Supreme Court ruling, the GRA, most of the more hardline TRA activities, are just not relevant.

The TRAsy focus on sex and gender being interchangeable. So why is this minority group within a minority group running the agenda to have sex no longer seen as biological.

Not sure of the figures but apparently the largest group within the survey were those who said that they were Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual and that their sex was primary to that identity.

LMAO. oops. xD I'm fucking dying. what happened to transwoman are woman? reality quickly reasserts itself, huh.

And by the same token, in Uganda and many places in the Middle East gay men are executed. In Iran, in fact, they are forced to transition if they don’t want to be killed. So the LGBT has more to worry about than an entitled middle class teenager in Bristol getting misgendered, doesn’t it?

What about the 'trans' people you don't know, the ones who want to decapitate women for speaking up for themselves, the ones who want to attack women with splintery rolling pins.

The fact that your opinion is informed only by your 'lived experience ' maybe why you don't seem to see a lot of things, you might understand more if you paid more attention to the world beyond the end of your street.

Evidence?

I saw these stats a few weeks ago and the first thing that came to my mind was that trans activism is breaking, it’s lost its power.

if more people believe themselves to be non binary rather than trans, then the cultural shift in rejecting trans theory is well underway from within its own community.

there will always be those so endowed to it that they’ll never change their minds and will die on that hill. But that’s the same for any extremist position.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2083637556319543378?s=46

I could be wrong but I think we are seeing schisms forming more strongly than before.

My DD is the same. Non-binary but is a lesbian and uses women’s spaces inc the Hampstead Heath women’s pond and has not interest in the mixed pond. She says a lot of the women sunbathe topless inc her.

what makes her non-binary?

@TrainspottingWelsh the problem is not that trans women want to go clubbing or do their nails or whinge about how washing powders don’t get their whites really white. If they want to do that good luck to them and laws quite rightly exist to protect them.

The issue is that women who are victims of rape are not allowed single sex spaces in which to recover, that vulnerable gay and autistic children are targeted and sterilised, that conspicuously law abiding women expressing legal views are targeted, threatened and assaulted.

To take your analogy with religion, the equivalent would be a Muslim insisting not just that they had the freedom to pray 5x a day but that you must as well, and get on a niqab while you’re about it.

No one here objects to trans women having rights and they quite correctly have all the rights others have plus additional protections on the basis of their transgender status. What we object to is them taking other people’s rights away - including the right to be same sex attracted.

Interesting that the bbc coverage is all “she” and “her”. Nasty transphobic bbc 😂

I am interested in the answer to that.

My observation - and perhaps anecdata, is that it's simple a name for being same-sex attracted and not wanting to have breasts.
I don't mean that to sound dismissive, BTW, because bothers me a bit that being a lesbian is not an acceptable label anymore, and also, what underlies the hatred of breasts?

I think the new mayor of Manchester is what we might have described as an androgynous lesbian, or butch lesbian. But sparkly new name means sparkly new concept to wang on about, and assert new (and different - older butch lesbians couldn't possibly understand) victimhood for.

I’ve asked in the past (has been nearly 6 years now).

The ‘best’ answer is that she doesn’t like being seen as a woman. At one point she was talking about having a mastectomy but hasn’t mentioned it for ages (and she couldn’t afford it anyway currently). The madness is that she goes around in vest tops without a bra so it looks even more ‘woman-like’ let’s say. She wears sports bras if she ‘has to’ wear one but she’s very obviously female (and has the masc lesbian look apparently).

She’s def ND - no official diagnosis but has been flagged by professionals and is supposed to be doing Right to Choose pathway.

I don’t really care as long as there’s no surgical intervention - I mean I think it’s BS but I can’t control what she thinks of herself - although I don’t agree with a lot of what she espouses.

@Lentilcakes. That's good. My oldest also talks a lot of rubbish, about other things, but I love him dearly.

@SodThisHeadacheyes, indeed! We just don’t talk about certain subjects.’, then it’s fine.

The piece I read didn't actually specify the pronouns so maybe she a Non Binary that doesn't go with they/them, which just makes it even more bonkers.

Is it possible there is a link between lesbians who don’t want to be regarded as butch, so instead identifying as non binary?

Butch lesbians have had a hard time for a long time, I wonder if it’s something young lesbians of today don’t want to be seen as or identify with.

By chance just came across this:

2.44 People with non-binary or gender fluid identities will only be protected if they meet the definition of gender reassignment as set out in the Act. They may also be protected against discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

2.46 A person who dresses and presents in ways which are commonly associated with the opposite sex will be protected where they do so as part of a process of reassigning their sex. The Act does not define what is meant by reassigning sex. It does not have to be a medical process – though some people will take medical or surgical steps – but it is likely to at least involve more permanent changes, such as changing one’s pronouns and consistently dressing and presenting as the opposite sex. A person presenting in a gender non-conforming way for some other reason does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, they may be protected against harassment and discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

You can't protect the rights of people you can't define. Women who identify as non-binary and men need sex specific rights just as much as any other women.

Gender critical feminists tend to find the concept of 'non-binary' sexist because it implies that most people have binary gendered identities, and it shouldn't be surprising that they discuss this. They would also discuss e.g. Anne Widdecombe's views on women in the church. That is what feminists do.

Should the likes of Ian Huntley be acknowledged as trans women, no, of course bloody not.

On what grounds?

According to the recent policies of many public bodies, his gender identity is up to him.

People with non-binary or gender fluid identities will only be protected if they meet the definition of gender reassignment as set out in the Act.

I wonder what steps they would need to take to demonstrate this.

I think they have to declare an intention of moving from male to female or female to male. Obviously GR is a process where someone has to live as if they are a man or woman for at least 2 years. I think in the Landrover case the man had said this was his intention although at the time he called himself NB. He did eventually get a GRC. In a recent ET the woman had never declared the intention, she just wanted the identity of NB so the judge said she wasn’t covered under this GR PC.

Yes, exactly. Landrover guy was clearly a TIM.

Loving it!

I only posted this late at night more because I wasn't aware the Government had every made any sort of statement about the group of people (who it now appears are the largest sheltering under the rainbow umbrella) and how they are or are not covered by the law.

So it seems to imply that so long as someone is saying they are gender fluid, non binary or whatever, they aren't covered by an law.

If someone then says I am working towards transitioning then they cease to be NB etc., and are on the pathway to transitioning so (assuming this is serious intent) covered by protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

However, they may be protected against harassment and discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

This is really strange and I dont see how it can be applied.

ie even if you are NB etc., if someone else perceives you to be what? a man, a woman, trans and harasses you indicating that their perception of who you are is the cause of the harassment you can then use the EA.

Just sort of saying this out loud, because I am trying to work out how it would work.