If the majority of women voted in favour of self ID?

[MaIeficent]

What would you do?

Completely hypothetical question. I'm not so interested in hearing about the stats/reality or that 'it would never happen'. Just hypothetically what people's stance would be if it did.

I'm conflicted as I don't think I could ever be in favour but I simultaneously support the right of women to make their own choices even if I disagree with them.

Would you defer to them in recognition that this is the decision that makes women as a whole happiest or would you soldier on and try and impose the wishes of a minority group onto a majority of dissenting women?

Should women who are not traumatised or who don't have PTSD get to make the choice on behalf of women who do?

Quite.

It's like asking everybody who has perfect sight and doesn't need a guide dog (particular weight given to the subset of those people who don't like dogs) to decide on whether others really need them or should be allowed them.

Or asking able bodied people to decide for disabled people if ramps are a good thing.

The thing with all this naive privilege is that you have to keep in mind: you are only ever an hour away from an incident that will not only open your eyes permanently to why some people need these things, but also create utter dependency on them yourself for the rest of your life.

This is all ridiculous. It's very straight forward.

The SCJ clearly expects: two single sex provisions PLUS an additional mixed sex which everyone can access, respects that not all identify by their sex or like to acknowledge it, and does not require anyone to enter a sex based space they have chosen to opt out of. This is necessary as some people need single sex spaces for access and without them are excluded, and there should be accessible spaces for everyone.

The activist position - men should have free choice of all spaces all the time, they should be the only consideration, and fuck the women this leaves excluded from spaces and services (even desperately needed ones), they don't matter. Exclusion and discrimination is wholly acceptable when done to the right people.

Honestly OP, do you find this an acceptable position for any basically kind or rational human to be holding?

Well. We get those who think they should posting here regularly. The ‘I’m alright Jack!’ poster. I remember a couple who told us we were all just prudes and that every communal changing room should be mixed sex as it is in the progressive countries. And that anyone who couldn’t should get over themselves. could have been the same poster name changed but even so. There are enough out there who will argue just that.

I suppose these posters are also arguing for some religious women to be excluded from society.

Its an argument, I suppose. Religious women and traumatised women should just get over it, and lesbians and gay men should just get over their 'genital preferences'.

Its a fucking vicious, nasty, cruel argument, but its an argument.

This.

The people most affected by this absolute inability to tolerate other people having needs too, include:

women of faith
women of minority cultures
women who have disabilities
women who are survivors of CSA/VAWG
older women
homosexual women
homosexual men

you have religious intolerance, racism, xenophobia, ageism, disablism and homophobia all at the same time. As well as misogyny.

I don't know what it is, but it's not 'left wing'. It's not 'kind' either. Or 'progressive'. It's certainly not 'tolerant' or 'inclusive'. It's highly anti 'diversity'. And 'right side of history'? It's downright Victorian colonialist in its values. It's fantastically ugly stuff.

Group 1: we need answers that work for everyone, with accessible spaces for everyone, and the law provides for this. Everyone has rights and needs, and equality has to mean everybody, regardless of differences of belief or other characteristics. Nobody should be left without services or resources.

Group 2: everyone and everything should serve the one group we champion, and the people who do not conform as we demand should be excluded, harmed and denied services and resources. Not all humans are equal, or entitled to equality. It is acceptable to harm others in the name of our cause, and inconvenient legal protections of others that prevent the use and abuse of them should be removed to make more important people's lives better.

In all honesty - which of these two groups looks like the oppressor? And frankly, sociopathic?

I partly agree.

I don't think they necessarily have less empathy for other women though. Some just seem to have a naive and almost childlike attitude whereby they think it should all be sunshine and smiles.

All the young male immigrants are poor victims fleeing the war in Albania. Transwomen are marginalised and vulnerable individuals who just want to live as their 'real self', men from misogynistic cultures where mass public sexual assaults of women are a spectator sport just weren't privileged enough to have the education we did. I feel these youths have been shielded from reality.

I watched a debate today where a load of young women were asked what a women is. A fair few said that it was somebody who identified as/lived as a woman. The guy leading the debate said it was a circular definition and that you can't say a dog is the animal known as a dog. They just didn't get it.

He asked if a man who dated a transwoman was heterosexual and a fair few said yes, as long as it was a proper TW who lived as a woman, because the man would be viewing them as female (the fuck he would lol). When asked if this would still be true if he had a penis less agreed but a few still said it would be a straight relationship between a man and woman because being a woman wasn't solely about genitalia and women who can't carry children are no less female.

One thought that a woman who was attracted to men but didn't identify as female herself could literally be a gay man (as opposed to a confused heterosexual woman). Sadly, I think there are a lot of young women who do actually believe all this nonsense and aren't just playing along for fear of repercussions.

But they seem to see it as akin to bigotry to push back against it. It's almost like the reaction you'd expect to see if people started advocating for apartheid/single race spaces. I honestly think many see it as a similar dynamic.

In one debate I watched a young woman said "well, if terfs want their own spaces then they should all go and sort that together rather than expecting the rest of us to do it for them". Said something about how other groups shouldn't have to give up their rights to appease bigots. They also didn't think that 'terfs' actually wanted a solution so much as to erase transfolk. They said that it wouldn't stop with single sex spaces.

They were asked to give one example of something transphobic that JK Rowling had said and they wouldn't answer it. Got quite defensive about it not being their job to educate people on transphobia etc. Will try and dig out the link.

They don't understand what specific rights women need as a sex class or why, or care enough to find out. So I don't trust their opinion that self ID is absolutely fine, even if they are in the majority, because its not based in fact.

What would happen if the majority went back to believing that if your husband beats you, you should stay. Should I go along with it to keep them happy? Laws should be based on safeguarding, risk, and facts; not keeping activists happy.

I couldn't find the better video but here's one of the others I was listening to today at work. Seems I was mixing up the points from a couple of different debates, but I must've listened to close to ten different debates today tbf.

Most of them say that a woman is a biological human female but a couple seem to genuinely believe that you can identify into womanhood. I'm inclined to believe that's what they really think as it would've been easier to just agree with the majority did they not feel that way.

I'm not a big fan of Andrew Wilson tbh but I find his videos to often be quite interesting as he doesn't seem to care about offending anyone and asks some pretty blunt questions. His videos often have really clickbaity titles like 'feminists schooled by logic' which kinda indicates the demographic he's aiming for, but it's usually an interesting watch and he gets some absolute nutters on from both sides.

He's one of those that likely shares some views with GC feminists but does so for completely different reasons (being a Christian conservative probs being the main one). I watched an interesting discussion about whether rights exist without the threat of force (I'm paraphrasing) and it did make me pause for thought. Because even minor crimes will usually culminate in forcible arrest if the law/process isn't adhered to. Most criminals don't 'willingly' surrender so much as make a judgement that they're not gonna win this one, and with zero personal consequence many would likely act very differently.

He then tried to argue however that this ultimately means that true equality can never really be achieved on a population level as it ultimately relies on men conceding power to women rather than being forced to, and that even in an 'equal' society it will likely always be the case that the status quo is maintained by the threat of male violence (towards criminals not women).

I was a bit hmm about that and couldn't decide whether I thought he was full of shit or whether there was some uncomfortable truth in it.

and he gets some absolute nutters on from both sides

Sounds like rage bait, so not informative.

Well, I watch them for entertainment mainly. But it's interesting to see the extent of things sometimes. All the people he has on are legally able to vote. Even if I don't agree with his views he makes some interesting points sometimes.

I like to see the real extent of the trans lobby (people like Blossom) rather than just people like Helen Webberley and I find it interesting when he interviews all the Onlyfans creators and digs into topics like the double standards in wokeness/some feminism etc. I don't understand those that want to only hear from people they agree with.

I've just started listening to this one. Got a 40 min drive ahead of me so going to finish it off then. It's talking about dangerous jobs etc which is interesting to me as I've done four on the list of most dangerous.

It seems most of these are reposts of excerpts from the longer two hours discussions. That why they have such clickbaity titles. I wish people wouldn't do that tbh as it no doubt puts a lot of people off watching them. But some of the topics are interesting.

Also watched Helen Webberley being interviewed by Julia Brewer yesterday which was a bit of an eye opener tbh. HW pretty much admitted to having given puberty blockers to 7yo children.

Julia kept pressing her for the age of the youngest patient she'd treated and she kept making evasive statements along the lines of "the medical community advises that..." and wouldn't give a straight answer. And then she finally said something like "treatment can be offered to patients as young as seven".

I would also campaign and might start anyway tbh - I didn’t appreciate this was the case globally and had thought this was a dying trend given the UK has started to see sense but evidently not. How depressing.
I think the issue is that women who support men coming into women’s loos etc “don’t mind” or feel unaffected, rather than them actively benefitting in any way - so that means they’re technically irrelevant to the whole debate.
The real issue here is that men’s loos aren’t accepting of transwomen. Men (all men) should be encouraged to self express however they choose whilst at the same time protecting the rights of genuinely vulnerable people such as rape and abuse victims who would be directly harmed. Men who dress and live as women should be celebrated for being true to themselves as men who don’t conform - you can’t bend the world into a fictional reality and pretend it’s real. Especially when innocent vulnerable people suffer as a result.

It’s like if there was a campaign to paint all buildings purple but the process involved removing all wheelchair ramps - the painters are doing a really effective job persuading the world of their need for purple buildings and how their mental health would benefit, and all of those who aren’t affected either way have joined the fight, with the outcome that wheelchair users and their supporters are being labelled bigots. So that even wheelchair user support groups are being infiltrated by able-bodied purple painters weeping and saying whenever I walk into a plain brick building I feel so disabled.
It’s just not right, we’re forgetting who the real vulnerable people are here.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/infertility/2544934-Anyone-used-Oxford-Online-Pharmacy-for-Clomid

Always worth posting this thread whenever HW is mentioned.

Her defining characteristic is not her interest in 'gender affirming' medicine, but her willingness to use her medical qualification to sell drugs to anyone, regardless of whether that breaches ethical standards of care.

Theres no one 'TRA' argument.

Some believe a man becomes a women on his say so, others think surgery is required.

Many believe the process to become trans is difficult, either gaining a robust diagnosis or paperwork. They imagine an official process and believe that its fool proof.

Some dont think that deeply and are just following their tribe, similar to lots of people about lots of issues. But want to talk about it anyway.

There are those dont care about single sex services and the definition of women. How many say they dont care who is in the next cubicle in toilets and changing rooms?

Some dont think sex should be protected, but trans should be. The response to basketball at the moment or in rape cases, the argument is that men have the right to declare themselves women, but some men fake being trans. Lots think that women dont need separate sports or prisons, but trans people do. The purpose of single sex is to protect trans people, not women.

The weirdest one for me is that adults dont need drugs, clothing and gendered hobbies but children do.

That makes debate and a solution difficult because there's no definition of trans and justification about why single sex or single gender spaces are needed and how they are defined.

Never seen that before.

Seems she can spot a market.

I've seen many such links many many times.

Yes, you are talking about people with serious prejudice against women.

Some of whom get off on controlling, abusing and getting to say no to women/expose themselves to women, and the strongly sexual aspect of this (exposure, causing shock and alarm, the excitement of not only being around women peeing/undressing etc but also the boundary breaking of being somewhere men aren't allowed AND the additional excitement of women being angry, afraid and embarrassed) is everywhere in men's own words. Social media, articles, they're not shy about it. Obviously, yes, many men get quite aggressive when cock-blocked. Which being told 'no' in this instance most certainly is for some.

You're also talking about a group with significant mental ill health.

You won't convince any of those people to see things differently, any more than you can convince that nice Mr James down in room 7 that he really isn't Napoleon. The people who need convincing - and showing the very grotty underbelly beneath the PR activism - are law makers and service providers. Who have to hold the line that 'yes it may make you very, very cross and sad that there's four facilities available and you can use any you like of three of them, but the fourth is reserved for women who need single sex provision and you can't have that one too - but other people have rights as well as you'. Indulging those who loathe women is no basis for sane policy.

Rather like it may make some very angry that there are people in the country who's race or colour is different to theirs - but they still have to accept that the law requires that other people have rights too.

I think it's the number of young people identifying as trans that's gone down isn't it?

I often think that part of the reason young people seem so much more accommodating is because they likely know transwomen IRL. I'm only just past 30yo and even when I was at school it was rare. It's a modern phenomenon.

The real issue here is that men’s loos aren’t accepting of transwomen.

Not sure I agree. I think it's more about validation. I doubt they'd want to use them even if men were accommodating because it's basically acknowledging you're not a woman if you use the gents.

But the people I'm talking about are women. I don't get the impression that they have prejudice against other women. They think they're standing up for marginalised groups.

As above, I think you'd get a similar reaction if you started advocating for single race spaces and backing it up with crime data to show that POC are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system. I'm not saying they are comparable examples but the reaction to both would likely be similar IMO - trans allies think they're fighting against prejudice.

One of the candidates to be Mayor of California has apparently stated on Piers Morgan's show that she would like to make the Olympics unisex. I didn't watch that one but he mentioned it and I can't see it being untrue given that people can easily watch it and verify his claims.

They're a well known pharmacy though aren't they? Generally regarded as legit.

I always thought the idea with these was that you know what you want and are basically signing a disclaimer to say you'll notify your GP/have been instructed on proper use to cover their back.

I've used a similar pharmacy before to buy beta blockers when I had to give a longish presentation in front of 70 people at a solicitors. I'd been prescribed them by my GP years before didn't have the time/couldn't be arsed to take a day off work just to get my script renewed.

Yes that’s true, they would choose to come into women’s loos even if the men were cheering them as strong and brave in their loos. And I bet they don’t feel like winners in unisex loos - the whole point (not for all presumably but for enough) is the taking away of women’s rights, the kick is about being there when women don’t want them there, or when it frightens and unsettles women and girls. And that’s just the doorway into all kinds of horrible worse risks.