Reply With QuoteThat's not the questionOriginally Posted by + the native hipster
Where does it say ......that you stated ...that teachers are doing this ?
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
That's not the question
Where does it say ......that you stated ...that teachers are doing this ?
mr ITK says elsewhere on this post ,all 'trans' believe they are 'born in the wrong body', to' fix' that , it has to be surgery and drugs, so supporting 'trans' means surgery etc , therefore any school with a 'trans' club encourages surgery
What's all the fuss about? There's innocent children being murdered in Gaza! Has one got one's knickers in a twist over stuff and nonsense?
As it happens I'd give her one
I havnt said anything about fixing anything
You have said that teachers are pushing , encouraging, etc surgery ....
Where's that link ?
It really is a load of fuss
It's illogical not having a discussion about a particular subject because there is a more serious one going on.
You're absolutely right of course, and there is a debate to be had about some of the trans issues but only 0.5% of the British population is trans, about 0.6% worldwide, and yet the amount of discussion that group have to endure is totally out of proportion. And as ever with these culture war issues a lot of it is prejudice dressed up as concern.
"Toilets need to be safe for women" - where's that energy where it comes to absolutely anywhere else being safe for women? Men sexually assault women everywhere, where's the outcry and holding each other accountable, instead of a shrug and a "oh that's awful"? I'm sorry to bring Trump into yet another thread but the President of the USA was literally found liable for sexual abuse, how many of the people CONCERNED and FURIOUS about the dangers of a trans woman in a female toilet are vehement opponents of his because of that?
Only using him because he's the most visible and dramatic example. Like I said, there is a valid debate to be had about certain issues but the faux moral outcry from some people is utterly hypocritical. Don't tell me that native gimpster idiot and his ilk give an actual shit about anybody else, stuff like this is just a vehicle for their prejudices against people who are different from them
Best leave Trump put of the debate and discuss the merits or otherwise of UK law and the effect on its citizens.
Referring to polarised extremes thousands of miles away doesn't really help rational and balanced discussion.
Trans might be 0.5% of the population but they're trying to find a loophole in the protections for all women. If they have to endure pushback and argument then it's their doing - they're the ones who posited the idea of transvestites using women's facilities etc (not just toilets) in the first place and have made a lot of noise about it, garnering plenty of support for a subjective, egomaniacal argument.
Let's not fall into the trap of judging a whole community by those of their cohort that may be visible on the internet and via the media. That's why it is best to stick to making a judgement about the legal decision itself and on an objective and fair basis.
I can't quite see why it would be illogical not having a discussion about a particular subject because there is a more serious one going on: much the same as I do not think it illogical for hospitals to exercise triage so as to prioritize more serious conditions. Granted we are talking about resource and logistical limitations with the one example which we cannot be certain applies equally to mental activity. But for all we know it might indeed do and I think rather than an objection in terms of Logic I think it more appropriate to think of it as a question of Ethics.
Nonetheless I concede humans are capable of, and entitled to, engage in thought and discussion over a wide range of subjects, some more trivial than others: our presence on this football board bearing testament to that.
So I think this issue in philosophical terms is largely a question of Ethics but I think there's an imp
important discussion to be had in terms of Metaphysics too. I haven't read the legal report so I don't know how the judges arrived at their conclusion on the definition of gender. But, for example, are we to say that gender assigned at birth is immutable and therein lies the intrinsic criterion for the decision? If so it implies that Nature or God or whatever is the prime mover and it downgrades humans as masters of their own destiny. Immediately that calls into question all the technological discoveries and advances in a whole host of disciplines with the object of improving life.
If humans were frowned upon for curing congenital defects, or improving irrigation in areas of drought, or preventing death and destruction by earthquakes and volcanoes and so on because these were predetermined by the initial Creator then where would that leave us all? I can see the convenience of this decision but one thing for sure, it's not as simple as some would have us believe.
I have followed most of this thread, but have to admit I am a bit confused by some of the arguments.
As I understand it the Supreme Court ruled on the definition of 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010. Their ruling is that a woman as defined by the act is a biological woman with female organs and chromosomes. That still leaves some uncertainty at the margins with people born intersex etc, but it clearly excludes those whose claim to being a woman is covered by a Gender Recognition Certificate.
According to other evidence that was published in the days after the ruling this contradicted the intention of Parliament in passing the act.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-civil-servant
Even if it contradicts the original intention it is at least clear(ish).
So who does the judgement affect (other than biological women - however defined)?
There seems to be a continuing conflation of sex and gender in the discussions of this issue - here and more generally. One is biological; the other is societal. The figure of 0.5% (262,000) trans people in the UK is thrown about based on the 2021 Census results - but there are doubts about how reliable that is, and evidence that a lot of respondents (especially those without English as a first language) didn't understand the question and gave a response they didn't intend.
'Trans' is used to describe people who are transgender. That includes transexuals who have transitioned through hormone therapy and/or surgery, but also a lot of people who 'identify' socially as different from their birth sex. That may include most transvestites, or may not!
In 20 years there have been less than 9,000 Gender Recognition Certificates issued.
Although J K Rowling is smoking a cigar and downing cocktails, it seems to me that a lot of the coverage of the whole trans issue, as well as the Supreme Court judgement is skewed and confused. It is an important, and maybe defining, ruling that will have serious practical consequences.... but I don't think its reach is as far as some think.
Safe spaces for women and a more level playing field for sportspeople are valid concerns, and those are the only arguments for some. But they are also used as a foot in the door for reactionaries and transphobes to try to turn the clock back and put a minority community back in a closet.
No disrespect meant to those grappling with their issues with dignity; unfortunately, their voices have been usurped in the conversation. I agree with your last sentence, although yesterday there were demonstrations in London and elsewhere against the supreme court ruling. Whether that dissent calms down remains to be seen.
There used to be a distinction between transexual and transvestite and this latest campaign by trans activists wants to lose that distinction and those terms, so that there's technically no difference between a teenage girl with dysphoria and a middle aged man who just likes to wear a frock (for whatever reason). Women have had to battle to protect hard won rights in the light of a feverish and often disgraceful land grab by trans activists. Saying it won't really affect many people is nonsense. If you're undermining protections for women then it affects half the population.
I've heard a few people talk about the opportunities for transphobes but that has to be dealt with in itself and not dumped on the shoulders of women. Unfortunately, the word "transphobe" has also been stripped of meaning since even the most conscientious and open-minded person is labelled an evil bigot for daring to highlight the flaws in the argument.
This has been one of the maddest things I've ever encountered. The way in which a subjective, irrational proclamation by a small group of people has been deemed to be untouchable and gospel by (some) police, courts, media, idiot celebrities (admittedly not difficult) and politicians (likewise) has been quite the lesson, especially regarding the scale of casual misogyny.
If that is aimed at me I said it affected all biological women, but probably a smaller number than claimed of other people.
That said most of the women I know couldn't care less and have very few experiences in any women's 'safe spaces' (toilets, changing rooms, etc) that cause them concern. My partner who grew up through the women's movement and worked in Rape Crisis centres for a lot of years (and stood in local elections for the Women's Equality Party) is on the fence. She pushes back on some of the demands for full trans equality with biological women, but is generally supportive of what she would see as campaigns against trans discrimination.
But we are both of an age where trans issues were barely discussed in our formative and middle years, and we don't live in London where I reckon the extremes of the argument hand out.
No, I was just making a general point about how this affects women - one of the complaints from trans supporters (or general observers) is that this affects very few people.
Perhaps the women in your life haven't had any issues because of the safeguards already in place. Difficult to say if it that would remain the case should trans activists get their way, but the concern is it would cause problems.
middle aged man who just likes to wear a frock (for whatever reason)
A few of them on here getting their knickers in a twist I reckon.
Trans women now banned from women's football.
Some common sense.
Not so common, I'd say : "The FA said that there are fewer than 30 transgender women registered among millions of amateur players and none in the professional game".
Crazy how quickly this moral panic has rolled out. Which minority group can we make life harder for next then ?
Hyperbole is a terrible thing, isn't it?
Just common sense in any physically active sport.
Best to nip it in the bud nice and early before it does cause a problem.
Posting Permissions