[News] A woman is a woman.

[Talby]

Ok. Let's break this down.

No. That is incorrect. It's normally based on ignorance as well which is kind of ironic, because you seem to be ignorant about that.


This is a false narrative because my accusation that your language is transphobic does not contain an accusation that you'll treat people unequally. That's irrelevant to my point.


This is where the subtlety of the issue comes in to play. Essentially, decent people want to be nice to other people, especially persecuted minorities. Trans-women are biologically men. That is a fact and a truth. But referring to them as men (when many don't even have a penis) can be seen a spiteful and punching down to people who may be very vulnerable. Why not just call them trans-women. That is their protected characteristic, not being biologically male.

As for men telling women what to do. I'd suspect those getting gaslit and enraged about this issue are 90% ignorant men.


It's hate speech. Obviously.

You have likened a trans-woman to a male serial killer in a dress. You are linking both a cisgender man and a murderer (albeit a fictional one) to trans-women. It's the equivalent of linking banking with Judaism or terrorism with Islam because your very clear implication is 'all trans-women' are like this. It's a transphobic statement whatever your opinion but I actually think it's through ignorance now rather than any spite (reading your other comments) so apologies for the nasty little man comment.

In terms of suppressing your 'free speech', your premise is nonsensical, I don't have the power to suppress your speech. Even if I did, I'd want you to be educated rather than suppressed. Free speech is not absolute, you can be prosecuted for hate speech.

Dear Hugo

The only person referring to a serial killer is you.

ignorance (which is a two way street) isn’t hate. Hate is hate.

You’re offended, simple as. My observation wasn’t aggravated in by hostility, I was simply pointing out that Buffalo Bill did not look like a woman. However, I would have respected his choices & rights and treated him civilly.

Thank you

 

[BadFish]

easy, male. you cant actually change sex, only gender.

And toilet signs are based on gender or sex?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Dear Hugo

The only person referring to a serial killer is you.

So you weren't referring to this character is your analogy?

Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Talby]

So you weren't referring to this character is your analogy?

Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Did I state that I think trans persons are serial killers?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Did I state that I think trans persons are serial killers?

I didn't state you did. Read my response again. I stated that you implied it.

 

[Talby]

I didn't state you did. Read my response again. I stated that you implied it.

How? I used the word ‘looking’ not ‘behaving’.

 

[jcdenton08]

I get that they are still protected by law my question is what sex are they?

Let's assume that a male has transitioned to female and has a gender recognition certificate, according to this legislation they are not a woman as only biological women fit into this category. So what sex does this legislation see them as?

If they were born a man, then male, with a female gender identity. If they were born a female, then male, with a male gender identity.

What this law clarifies is that sex and gender are not the same thing. So, for example, hospitals, changing rooms and the like can be designated by sex rather than gender, without fear of breaking any discrimination laws (and getting sued).

Given there are between 68-107 genders (https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gender_identities) it would be unfeasible to have that number of changing facilities, hospital wards, homeless shelters, toilets and gendered sports categories to accommodate everyone.

What the law does is clarify that if, for example, you are sexually a man who “identifies” as pangender, you would use the men’s facilities and be treated in law as a man in specific situations. If you’re sexually a woman who identifies as intergender, you would use the women’s facilities.

Gender identity doesn’t factor in sexual attraction. A biological man exclusively attracted to biological women, for example, could identify their gender as being pangender, presenting as trans (in simple terms, adopting female aesthetic), and therefore not (edit: typo) claim access to both men’s and women’s facilities, sports and protections.

This law simply clarifies that sex and gender aren’t the same thing. You are either one or the other.

If you identify as another gender that’s cool too.

 

[BadFish]

I didn't state you did. Read my response again. I stated that you implied it.

You can see why I didn't want to engage

 

[BadFish]

If they were born a man, then male, with a female gender identity. If they were born a female, then male, with a male gender identity.

What this law clarifies is that sex and gender are not the same thing. So, for example, hospitals, changing rooms and the like can be designated by sex rather than gender, without fear of breaking any discrimination laws (and getting sued).

Given there are between 68-107 genders (https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gender_identities) it would be unfeasible to have that number of changing facilities, hospital wards, homeless shelters, toilets and gendered sports categories to accommodate everyone.

What the law does is clarify that if, for example, you are sexually a man who “identifies” as pangender, you would use the men’s facilities and be treated in law as a man in specific situations. If you’re sexually a woman who identifies as intergender, you would use the women’s facilities.

Gender identity doesn’t factor in sexual attraction. A biological man exclusively attracted to biological women, for example, could identify their gender as being pangender, presenting as trans (in simple terms, adopting female aesthetic), and therefore claim access to both men’s and women’s facilities, sports and protections.

This law simply clarifies that sex and gender aren’t the same thing. You are either one or the other.

If you identify as another gender that’s cool too.

Cool, thank you.

I can see why the trans community are concerned about this and don't see it as a step forward.

 

[Hugo Rune]

How? I used the word ‘looking’ not ‘behaving’.

How do you think a trans-woman would feel when they read your comparison? It is a loaded comparison no matter what your intention and demonstrates a level of ignorance about other people's feelings at the very least.

 

[Albion my Albion]

While some worm species are indeed asexual, others can reproduce sexually – it all depends on the type of worm we're talking about. For example, earthworms and red wiggler worms are hermaphrodites, meaning they have both male and female reproductive organs and can reproduce sexually.

The red wiggler worms are trying to figure out which toilets to use.

 

[BadFish]

While some worm species are indeed asexual, others can reproduce sexually – it all depends on the type of worm we're talking about. For example, earthworms and red wiggler worms are hermaphrodites, meaning they have both male and female reproductive organs and can reproduce sexually.

The red wiggler worms are trying to figure out which toilets to use.

I have these in my worm farms and can confirm they are happy to share.

Actually I have never asked them so who knows.

 

[Talby]

You can see why I didn't want to engage

You didn’t engage as you’re a fish out of its depth, doing some sort of moral posturing with no substance.

Getting all stroppy isn’t exactly a convincing argument by either you or Hugo. There’s a SC judgement and relevant legislation to refer to and you're just presenting your own views, not fact.

 

[Curious Orange]

Gender identity doesn’t factor in sexual attraction. A biological man exclusively attracted to biological women, for example, could identify their gender as being pangender, presenting as trans (in simple terms, adopting female aesthetic), and therefore claim access to both men’s and women’s facilities, sports and protections.

I think you missed a 'not' in there, as in 'therefore not claim access'.

Easily done given the mental gymnastics required, but the obvious example to give is that a same sex attracted trans woman* is not a lesbian, so could quite legally be excluded from lesbian groups.

Eddie Izzard once joked that he was a lesbian in a man's body, but I don't think he ever meant anyone to take it seriously.






* or a heterosexual trans woman for that matter.

 

[jcdenton08]

Cool, thank you.

I can see why the trans community are concerned about this and don't see it as a step forward.

That bit is where emotions run high and people disagree and get very nasty with it on both sides.

The gist is that male trans people identifying as women want to be treated as women in society, because they feel they are women. This includes the legally protected right to do everything from changing in women’s spaces, to competing in women’s sports.

Some people feel this is inappropriate, because while male trans people identifying as women are relatively few in number, taking the issue of competing in women’s sports, they are seen as having an unfair advantage. Swimmer Lia Thomas, for example, lived as a man until he was 18, when he became a she after discovering their gender identity. In this time, Thomas went from ranked #462 as a male to #1 as a female. This pissed other female swimmers off, as they felt it was no longer an even playing field when genetics were so heavily skewed against them.

Despite the yelling and screaming from both TERFs and militant trans protestors, there isn’t one right or wrong answer to this complicated issue.

The fact remains that in the 2021 census, there were under 100,000 declared trans people of both sexes combined.

 

[BadFish]

You didn’t engage as you’re a fish out of its depth, doing some sort of moral posturing with no substance.

Getting all stroppy isn’t exactly a convincing argument by either you or Hugo. There’s a SC judgement and relevant legislation to refer to and you're just presenting your own views, not fact.

A fish out it it's depth?

How does that work then?

I'm not sure that's the phrase.

 

[jcdenton08]

I think you missed a 'not' in there, as in 'therefore not claim access'.

Easily done given the mental gymnastics required, but the obvious example to give is that a same sex attracted trans woman is not a lesbian, so could quite legally be excluded from lesbian groups.

Eddie Izzard once joked that he was a lesbian in a man's body, but I don't think he ever meant anyone to take it seriously.

Thanks for the correction, edited

 

[Talby]

A fish out it it's depth?

How does that work then?

I'm not sure that's the phrase.

Really?

So, you see the same fish in the shallows and in the deep?

 

[Talby]

How do you think a trans-woman would feel when they read your comparison? It is a loaded comparison no matter what your intention and demonstrates a level of ignorance about other people's feelings at the very least.

So you’re moving away from hate and veering towards hurt feelings?

 

[fly high]

Firstly, read up the page. It did permeate to an extent, as I wrote. Np if you didn’t get round to reading every last single post though.

Secondly, the challenge was to show evidence that JK Rowling hates trans people for being trans. She Is hardly shy at stating her case, so if she did imo she would just say it. And she hasn’t.
Generally when I read her Twitter I don’t feel she is anti trans per se just pro what she sees as women’s rights. And part of that is pushing back trans activists.
But fair enough, put the ten most extreme of her zillions of tweets together, i can see how others would reach a different conclusion.
Also I can’t say her choice of language when talking abut trans people is always good, but in her mitigation a lot of mud is slung the other way too.

A bit more than mud. She has had death threats, threats of rape, violence against her. There should be a rational debate on this subject with consideration and empathy from both sides but it seems to me that the trans lobby doesn't agree with that way. They want to destroy anyone who doesn't exactly agree with them.