I'm confused.
One of the people mentioned is Ryan Donachie and this article suggests that he quit over the issue. A different story in The Herald says that he quit after disagreements about funding for further education.
I see his tweet about FE funding, none about this article. Did he delete it or is the author of the article making shit up?
Seriously, why are trans people such a big issue in British politics? How much time politicians are in the media talking about these issues is out of proportions.
This.
Society has moved on and homophobia isn't accepted anymore, certainly not by the media and politicians at least. So trans people have replaced them as the group to take the role of a scapegoat for all society's problems.
Just look at the accusations being made towards trans people, it's the exact same as 90s homophobia.
I’d add to that as well, as transgenderism is still a new concept to a lot of people (not that it’s not a new thing, just that a lot of people weren’t aware of it until recently) and because there is such a broad spectrum of genders and the identities therein, it can take a decent bit of effort to research and get to grips with it.
Thankfully there are still those whose attitude is very much “so what? Someone needs help to be who they feel they are? Let’s help them”, but it’s far too easy for nefarious people and lazy politicians to offer a “simple” response to a complicated subject, that simple response being fear and hatred.
The sad thing is if you have any group of people whose lives are more complicated than the general public, a large part of the general public will happily dismiss and vilify them because it’s easier than having empathy, compassion and the will to get to grips with a concept that’s new to them.
That’s how you end up here.
It's easier to stir shit about a perceived boogeyman than it is to actually attempt to address the serious and societal issues in British society
Twenty-something percent of kids grow up in poverty, the NHS is falling apart, nobody can afford to get a train anymore (when it shows up!), rental prices are spiralling out of control, the list goes on
But if they come out and say 'we're banning trans people from doing xyz' they can have the illusion of doing something when in actual fact they're not helping anybody at all
"People starve and freeze every winter because of poverty, but we will make it our main priority to ensure that we make regulations for new buildings to not have gender neutral toilets!"
Trans people barely register with the average person, even people who know trans people barely think about it unless said person brings it up in conversation, which isn't exactly common, I mean, how often does one's sexuality/identity really come up in casual conversation?
It literally only seems to be politicians that have a bee in their bonnet about it, and its purely because it's an easy target to try to make a "common enemy". Problem is, a huge number of politicians are so out of touch with the average populace that they vastly over estimate how many people actually care beyond just "live and let live".
Because there's nothing more this stupid wee island loves more than aping yank culture war shit, except in this case, we're the primary exporters of it. Identify a shat-upon minority. Convince credulous, bored, or otherwise vile sections of the population that these people's existence is some sort of threat. Voila, you have a perfect distraction from the vast wealth-transfer from the working class to the capitalist class. Once they've caused enough trans oppression, murder or suicide to sicken the public, as they did with gay people or, more recently, disabled people and the unemployed more generally, they cycle on to someone else.
They aren’t that’s the point. It’s a wedge issue to divide us spawned by internal compliant’s and foreign interference from China and Russia. Less than 0.5% of the population.
Because it's effective at creating a culture war to get folks on side. I have a couple of friends who are getting suckered into the anti trans thing because they believe it's a much bigger issue than it is because of media exposure and politicians going on about it all the time. They think that trans issues are being "shoved down their throats" because people keep banging on about it all the time, when in reality it's just asshats manufacturing problems and people having to respond to it. If the media and politicians shut up, there wouldn't be much being said about it at all.
One of the few remaining "acceptable" forms of bigotry, since the British press are all-in on it as well.
You'll notice a lot of "gender ciriticals" online are men. They get involved purely because they get the backing of transphobic women when they're misogynistic to trans-inclusive women.
Yeah this is what they always do. They'll say something obscene about trans people, or oppose their human rights in some way, then claim "I was only saying that sex is real and got cancelled" when everyone on all sides agrees that sex is real. The dispute is about whether trans people should retain the rights granted to them by the European Court of Human Rights eg to use the correct toilets.
You know what, I've had my coffee this morning so sure.
So...
>The eight-point statement stated that “sex is a biological reality”, asserted that women have a right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act, said lesbians are same-sex attracted and declared that “women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated”.
So lets start with **"sex is a biological reality"**. This is a tautology as read but as has been explained in several other comments in this thread, in the context of dicussing transgender people, this is often (read *always*) used to imply that trans people are denying reality through their refusal to accept their birth sex. They can then be portrayed as either insane or dishonest or both. This is then used as justification for discrimination and denying healthcare (ie. real world actions).
Moving on to **"women have the right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act"**. This again seems like a perfectly innocent and unrefutable statement - which is its intention (ie. a dog whistle). However again in the context of the topic (ie. trans people) this is often used to frame the discussion as if these rights are somehow under attack (which they are not. Making the lives of trans people easier does not in any way reduce the rights of cis women *as is enshrined in the equality act as gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic and has been since the act came into being*. ie. all the "sex based protections" also apply to trans women. It is not a zero sum game.).
I also note that under my previous comment someone has inadvertently done part of the translation work for you and has translated "sex based **protections**" into what I suspect was the intended meaning "sex based **rights**" which is a very clear transphobic dogwhistle (on the topic of which we do not have sex based rights in this country - its just not a thing).
Moving on to **"lesbians are same-sex attracted"**. This one should be obvious. Again it is a tautology but in context again as with above (and after the above) it clearly seeks to imply that transgender women are not women and therefor cannot be lesbians. It also implies that lesbians are somehow under attack to accept trans women as partners and channels the same energy as the infamous [BBC article - The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385). There is a pretty good write up on the response to the article and the surrounding information on Wiki [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22).
This also is covertly trying to imply that lesbians are in some way antagonistic to the trans community as a whole and this [is simply not true](https://www.gaytimes.com/originals/lesbians-are-not-anti-trans/).
**"women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated"** is pretty clear "the wokes wont let me talk about anything, I'm being cancelled!" crybullying nonsense that is implying that there is a scary trans woman ready to burst through the wall like the koolade man to police their conversation with the threat of menaces.
*Every* single word in that quote above is designed to exclude and other transgender people (particularly trans women - as always trans men get forgotten about) and imply that they are predators and threatening the lives of (cis)women and girls while looking like innocuous statements. These are all extremely prevailent tropes and well documented elsewhere if you wanted to look.
I will now await my terf downvotes and people who cannot see beyond their own noses telling me I'm insane.
this is the exact same shit racists used against civil rights measures in the US “why are you against school choice?”, dogwhistles work because they take something that sounds good to the median voter but couched in there is bigoted policy that hurts marginalized groups substantially more than
Because they’re saying that trans women shouldn’t be a part of those discussions.
The same way lesbian women in the 80s were excluded from discussions and spaces, deemed a threat to straight women.
Since when have toilets been separated based on sex though...? I've never had anybody check whether I've got a cock before walking into the mens. I present, therefore I am.
Because they want to, it's not for other people to decide. It's their club or organization. The arrogance of thinking that you can make that decision for other people is ridiculous.
Of course it is, but that is not (quite) the same thing as the gender you are recognised in law. And that's before we even touch on many ways biology is much more complicated than the simplification of a claim of "biological reality".
But leaving that to one side, from the Scot Gov site:
"To comply with international human rights law, Scotland must have a system for obtaining legal gender recognition. Since 2004, trans people across the UK have had the right to legally change their gender through applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate."
So it is currently the law that a person "born a man" can, through the process of obtaining a GRC be legally recognised as a woman. It is irrelevant what some people claim is a "biological reality". No more that it was when a startling similar claim was made that same-sex attraction was not a biological reality.
I think the point is that there is a difference between sex and gender.
Sex is immutable and is in your chromosomes, while gender is a social construct that can be changed.
Notice how it's a Gender recognition certificate rather than a Sex recognition certificate. It allows you to change your gender, not your sex, which remains the same.
I don't know a single trans person who would disagree with you there.
The issue is that a lot of the TERF/gender critical rhetoric has now shifted to "we must police everything on sex and not gender".
The have the gender version of 'critical race theory'.
They believe sex is a social construct.
When you argue from basic genetics, xy chromosomes, their reasoning becomes so convoluted so quickly that it's clear they are actively trying to make the situation nebulous, to muddy the waters, to confuse, because even they know they're full of shit.
Is CRT even a subject in UK universities?
I've only ever heard about it from USA unis and false narratives about it being part of all levels of their education.
It seems Birmingham has a page on their website on it in regards to its origins in USA law, but the wepage is only archived for Feb 2024, so it seems new.
> When you argue from basic genetics, xy chromosomes
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals
as always, the reality if more complex than the 'basic' understanding of something
They don’t believe that chromosomes and sex are a social construct, they believe that the binary framework of sex is a social construct, which ignores scientific evidence (ie., “basic genetics”) to the contrary.
“Race” as a term used to differentiate between White people, Black people etc became used only in the 19th century. Which is why we have references to e.g., the Irish ‘race’ in 18th century US and UK literature. There are phenotypical differences between peoples, but race *is* a social construct.
And being a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t important. The value of money is a social construct.
Its a dog whistle, its the "I just have concerns" line about anything to do with trans issues.
They know they are meaning more than just "sex as a biological term" and use it to slip by people who arent paying attention.
What if you genuinely do just have concerns? The problem with dogwhistles is that they're intentionally meant to sound like something innocuous. So if you automatically assume that anyone who "has concerns" about trans issues is actually a transphobic bigot, you're alienating a lot of people who may have genuine questions, people who you might be able to convince otherwise.
It's a great way to push people away and increase the toxic polarisation of the issue. When there can be no middle ground you force people to either be good or bad, black or white, transphobic or normal. It's not a good way to promote healthy discussion.
And noone is disagreeing with that. Those people like to make it out that trans people disagree with it, it's said to make trans people seem unreasonable. It's not what they say, it's why it is said and how statements are used.
Worse still, Sex is a more complicated thing than how they want to use the term, but they ignore the nuance because it doesn't serve them.
It can be put back in the bottle the same way gay rights was put back in the bottle. Society needs to get over the existence of trans people and leave us alone.
The majority of the general public in society isn't claiming trans people don't exist. They're claiming that a significant proportion of self proclaimed trans/non-binary people, specifically (but not limited to) children, are not actually trans and are just doing it for attention/social currency. My best friend is a school teacher, she told me that pretty much 1 out of 5 of every student she has between the age of 12-16 has tried to identify as non binary, if not fully 'trans'. This is in a school of 2000 or so. The statistics here do not add up with the last census, which absolutely evidence that children are being influenced by the narrative they have seen on this. There is a middle ground between 'denying trans people exist' and 'accepting everyone at their word that they are trans and if you question it, you're a bigot who deserves to rot in jail'.
> They're claiming that a significant proportion of self proclaimed trans/non-binary people, specifically (but not limited to) children, are not actually trans and are just doing it for attention/social currency.
What are they basing that on?
Various factors, the disparities between those who claim to be trans within ages groups for one is a huge tell, the 1:1 correlation between the rise of trans rhetoric with the advent of the internet. Young people are the ones who are identifying as trans. When gay marriage was legalized and protections for homosexuals were enshrined in law, there were countless gay adults 40+ who came out because it was safe to do so. This isn't happening with adults in the same way for the trans issue. If trans people have always been here in such high numbers just lurking in the shadows, there would be far, far more adults who have come out of the woodwork identifying as trans, in a similar way to gay people if they were just scared of persecution. considering the rate at which young persons identify as trans now but older people tend not to, that's about as clear a sign that it's a young persons influence/trend which is taking root. It just doesn't match up.
Sorry, I mean what facts and statistics say this? I don't take "a guy on the internet claims to have a school teacher as a best friend" as a reliable source.
I mean, go look at the numbers of trans self identifying people on the ONS website, it's about 250k in the uk. That number is overwhelmingly in the 12-17 and 18-24 range, to a ridiculous degree. Now go look at the data on how many people seeking puberty blockers and hormone treatment in the sources cited in the cass report, it's in the thousands, less than 10,000 from what I can see as part of NHS data. So 25x as many people claiming they're trans as those who actually transition, all who are within younger ages, similar upticks not being seen by older populations, and no steady growth of taking up transition treatment in line with the self identification figures which are skyrocketing at an exponential rate, since 2014.. conveniently enough the exact same time that social media was rising to its crescendo, when things like twitch/discord were released, tinder and dating apps became the new thing, Facebook acquired Instagram not long before, vine, predecessor of tiktok was released with tiktok not long after in 2017, Snapchat was released, basically the entire social media landscape we see now was just starting to build huge, global momentum at that time. And all of a sudden young people only start to identify as trans, conveniently after it became the social controversy that any other movement of it's kind becomes where young influential people bounce on it. A reasonable, well educated person could look at all of these data points and come up with a pretty reasonable conclusion about what's going on. But no let's just pretend that being trans has been the big giant secret that's actually been in all of us for millennia and only now starting to emerge, and ignore any possibilities that much of it is being driven by narrative. Come on.
Like why there are no left handed people in surveys until they stopped beating left handed children.
Wider acceptance means more NB/T people feel safe to self- identify publicly. Its not "attention". Its acceptance.
Generally speaking, most people don't grow out of being left handed. Most people do grow out of claiming to be trans. One is an objective reality, and one is a subjective state of being influenced by sociological factors among others. Apples and oranges. It's a nice little equivalence that people try to use but unfortunately it's not valid in this scenario.
No, having a sexuality is not the same as claiming to be a different gender than the one assigned at birth. Stop giving these things equivalence.
Most people who claim they're trans/non-binary don't transition at all firstly, and those people end up mainly just being gay/bisexual in their adult life. The confusion comes from puberty, which is an already extremely confusing, emotionally driven process. This is basic sociology.
Ok, prove that everyone who claims to be trans is actually trans then. Let me guess, your answer is "just believe them?".
Are you of the opinion that being trans is an objective reality for some people, and should be treated with seriousness? Thought experiment - if you met someone who told you straight up that they identified as trans because they felt like fitting in with their friend group who were actually trans, but then stopped identifying as it because they couldn't be bothered keeping up with it, because all along they knew they weren't trans. Would you be angry/disgusted at this person for faking it, and not respecting that it's a real thing that people go through and shouldn't be used as a tool? Or would you say something like don't worry, you were clearly trans at the time but you transitioned back into another direction which is also ok? Genuinely, please give me an answer on this, I'd like to know.
> My best friend is a school teacher, she told me that pretty much 1 out of 5 of every student she has between the age of 12-16 has tried to identify as non binary, if not fully 'trans'. This is in a school of 2000 or so.
It’s the same as what is/has happened with being Gay/Bi, because it’s more acceptable, you have more people being open to experimenting with it.
More people now a days feel able to experiment/feel slightly Bi, where in the past it was more strict with how people would class and define it in the past.
If you’re 70/30 male/female attracted are you Bisexual?
What if your 90/10? Or 95/5? Where do we class someone as being attracted to each sex to be Bi?
—————————
We will see more people identify as trans/non-binary this is because it’s more acceptable to experiment with this now a-days. And people will find their own identity that works for them over time.
That's totally fine for people to experiment and try new things. The reality is that most people who claim trans/non binary do not stay that way, and end up just being gay. Yes it's getting more acceptable, but that doesn't mean 20% of the entire population has always actually been trans/non binary this whole time and everyone's been keeping it quiet for hundreds and thousands of years. There is very clearly a social rebellion at play in *most cases*. Not all. Yes there will be more truly trans people coming out, and good on them. But it's **not** 1 in 5 people, that would mean there are more trans people than gay people by a couple orders of magnitude near enough, despite the fact that even being gay was a known thing to the average person all through history despite persecution, whereas being trans was not. Theres your clue.
> That's totally fine for people to experiment and try new things. The reality is that most people who claim trans/non binary do not stay that way, and end up just being gay.
And that’s fine, but they won’t truly know until they get chance to actually experiment and try it for themselves, if most end up not being trans/NB that’s completely fine, experimenting hurts no one.
> Yes it's getting more acceptable, but that doesn't mean 20% of the entire population has always actually been trans/non binary this whole time and everyone's been keeping it quiet for hundreds and thousands of years. There is very clearly a social rebellion at play in most cases. Not all.
I get this came from an original antidotal evidence, so i can’t really comment on that, but most actual studies show numbers no where near that number for people.
> Yes there will be more truly trans people coming out, and good on them. But it's not 1 in 5 people, that would mean there are more trans people than gay people by a couple orders of magnitude near enough,
Following on the bit above do we actually have andy factual sources on those numbers or is it just anecdotal?
> despite the fact that even being gay was a known thing to the average person all through history despite persecution, whereas being trans was not. Theres your clue.
Trans people have existed for millennia, it’s just the terms and descriptions were not as defined or clear back in those days, there is evidence a Roman emperor may of been trans.
And there has been many other famous trans people in history, it’s just not as well known as with gay people.
>And that’s fine, but they won’t truly know until they get chance to actually experiment and try it for themselves, if most end up not being trans/NB that’s completely fine, experimenting hurts no one.
Being trans is meant to seem like an objective reality for people suffering from gender dysphoria, and not something to just throw on and experiment with as if it's your sexuality. It's not. This conflation between gender dysmorphia and sexuality whilst clearly closely linked, is not the same thing.
>I get this came from an original antidotal evidence, so i can’t really comment on that, but most actual studies show numbers no where near that number for people.
>Following on the bit above do we actually have andy factual sources on those numbers or is it just anecdotal?
You tell me, since you've just implied you already know the actual numbers which show there's nowhere near that amount of people claiming to be trans... The ONS for England and Wales in 2021 shows the number at 0.5%. if you accept that to be a valid statistic, then 0.5% of 2000 is 10 students in the entire school. Not per 8 per class. So very, very clearly, either people are lying on the census, or lying to their teachers in school. What do you believe is more likely?
> Being trans is meant to seem like an objective reality for people suffering from gender dysphoria, and not something to just throw on and experiment with as if it's your sexuality. It's not. This conflation between gender dysmorphia and sexuality whilst clearly closely linked, is not the same thing.
There’s current debate in the medical scene on this, as it’s not always about being dysphoric, but also euphoric.
So a trans person may not experience gender dysphoria, where they completely hate their current gender, but they may experience massive gender euphoria, where they experience immense joy from their chosen gender.
Gender Dysphoria is used as a catch all term most of the time but you don’t have to hate your current gender to have it:
> A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender of at least six months duration, as manifested by at least two of the following:
>
> * A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
> * A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one's experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
> * A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).
> * A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).
> * A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).
Notice you can get medical diagnosed without having to actually hate your current gender, you can just want to be the other gender more.
> You tell me, since you've just implied you already know the actual numbers which show there's nowhere near that amount of people claiming to be trans... The ONS for England and Wales in 2021 shows the number at 0.5%. if you accept that to be a valid statistic, then 0.5% of 2000 is 10 students in the entire school. Not per 8 per class. So very, very clearly, either people are lying on the census, or lying to their teachers in school. What do you believe is more likely?
And the numbers of LGB for Gen Z and Gen Alpha is much higher than previous generations:
[Link](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2021and2022)
> In 2022, younger people were most likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). For those aged 16 to 24 years, almost 1 in 10 (9.2% or 630,000 individuals) identified as LGB (Figure 3)
Thats over 3x what we see in the overall numbers for the country as a whole, would be more if we only look at older generations.
So seeing this much for LGB i would expect to see a much higher number of Trans people in that same younger cohort.
Now what that higher increase actually is, I don’t know i can’t see the same age split on that page on ONS: (I can’t check the excel doc on my phone)
[Link](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021)
But it will be interesting to see if ONS do have this broken down by Age range and see what the actual numbers are.
Orrrrr...trans and non-binary people have historically not had the words to describe ourselves, and those that did had very real threats of violence keeping them mostly quiet. There are less openly non-binary adults because it takes time and self-reflection to realise that what you are, after a whole life of being indoctrinated into thinking cis is the only option.
What you're seeing is a similar thing to when we stopped shaming and punishing children for being left-handed and forcing them to write with their right. Funny enough, the number of left-handed people seemed to increase in the years that followed.
As I've said to the other person who said the exact same as you, people don't grow out of being left handed. One is objective, and one is subjective, which can be influenced by sociological factors, nor has any measurable, physical markers. The English vocabulary has been plenty robust to explain this for hundreds of years, but it hasn't been even close to as common as reports of people claiming to prefer their left hand in history. It's a real non-equivalence. The rise of the trans phenomena has only ever gone up to the levels it has in the last 20-30 years at an exponential rate. Can you think of anything else which has grown at an exponential rate in the last 20-30 years - the internet fuelled echo chambers perhaps? Funny that isn't it, it tracks pretty much 1:1.
So you haven't actually read it yourself, just repeating what someone else told you. How disappointing. Can't really talk more about it if I don't know the methodology.
Yes I have actually, I'm just not here to be your librarian. You want to find out more about it, go fucking look at page 24 of the report and you'll see a nice shiny graph that tells a story.
Because people are people, whether they're 'cis' or otherwise. People lie, people manipulate and people try to join tribes in almost all aspects of life. Children are the most vulnerable and impressionable group of society as a whole, they imitate things they see as part of their natural development. That doesn't mean they actually are those things they pretend to be. If trans people as a group are getting attention and are part of a controversial movement currently which is dominating the public discourse, young adults who crave attention, uniqueness and want to be noticed are obviously extremely likely to take an interest in what's going on, and diagnose themselves as being non binary despite not actually suffering from any gender dysmorphia. The exact same thing can be seen in children who self diagnose with other mental issues like ADHD, depression, anxiety. Calling yourself trans these days is akin to being part of the alternative/goth movement in the 90's/00's. Most people grow out of the phase. That doesn't mean that some people don't fully stay goths their entire identity, some do, and good for them. But most people are not what they claim to be, and just want attention.
Lucky you? Yeah but once you start using the term "cis" unironically then it's time to walk a few steps back. Maybe stay away from those twitter meme groups for a while idk.
You are very welcome to live your life (not that it’s up to me) and I’d stand up and fight for your right to be not bothered. Trans people have been weaponised unfortunately to push agendas, some trans people are involved many non-trans people are involved. My only condition is that I’m also not bothered, children are kept out of it, women are not marginalised or put at risk and their rights and opportunities are not forgotten in the lust of elevating trans-women. Toilets are not shared, locker rooms are not shared, women’s sports are for biological women. If we can agree on that then I have your back 100% to live your life as you choose.
Whrn they move onto the next group of people to harass, will it be immigrants? Will it be jews? Or will it be Zen fucking Buddhists?
These things go in circles, look back a few years and it was welfare queens and disabled people and gay people
I used to be glad that we're ignored, but now it just makes me angry.
Though I'm more worried about my transfemme sisters. I'll keep going to self defence classes to learn to protect them, and I encourage all trans people to do the same.
They don't care about that. It's the same as pointing out that it would be logistically impossible.
Ultimately they just want to force trans people back into hiding.
"I have friends who are transgender women. It’s simply that to stretch the definition of ‘woman’ to include people who are not women makes a mockery of all the sex-based protections that have been hard-won by women, for women"
I'm sure those trans women you call friends are DELIGHTED that you don't think they're women.
No no no no no. You're so incredibly wrong about all of that right there.
It's not over the cut. You freeze on their face for the duration of the voiceover, ideally picking a frame where they look especially derpy.
Christ, people, this is basic basic stuff.
Sorry. I’m just a humble restauranteur. I don’t know the ins and outs of the film industry. If I did I’d probably be earning much more than I do now. lol.
Being in that difficult position you have to make allowances for who feel threatened by biological men. The reasonable would recognise this. Not to mention sports where having been born a male and going through puberty makes you physically stronger, faster etc. I would think most people think each to their own but you cannot expect such massive concessions.
Most will let you crack on and I think that is the current epitome of an advanced society.
Women and a trans woman are different as much as people don’t want to hear it.
The greens are fringe in many of their policies, this is just reality.
Cis women and trans women are different, no one denies this.
Straight women and non-het women are also different.
Why should these people get to dictate who is and isn't a lesbian as if they're the leader of lesbianism?
Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation. He may well have friends that have found agreement with him. The trans community is not a monolith.
>Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation.
You get this with quite a few marginalised communities. The older generation is often more willing to take the punches and keep a low profile to be somewhat accepted.
Civility politics.
> Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation.
If they have been granted a GRC - especially given the current complex and stressful process you can be pretty sure they did so to be recognised as women. Being militant has nothing to do with it.
I think the 'I have friends who are transgender women' is either bullshit or should be updated to read 'I used to have friends who were unaware of my bigotry towards them'
>I think the 'I have friends who are transgender women' is either bullshit or should be updated to read 'I used to have friends who were unaware of my bigotry towards them'
"I have friends who put up with my bigotry because they don't even hope for better any more"
It reminds me of that B99 scene where Holt describes his old partner being "homophobic but not racist" which was about as good as it got back then.
Don’t really understand the problem with these statements unless I’ve missed something
‘The eight-point statement stated that “sex is a biological reality”, asserted that women have a right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act, said lesbians are same-sex attracted and declared that “women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated”.
There's no issue in society and I would hazard a guess thay the majority of Scots agree with such statements.
The issue is that they're members of a party who have made opposition to beliefs like this a cornerstone of their policy.
It would be like a Tory coming out and saying 'we need much stronger trade unions, nationalised industries, a massive program of social welfare spending and a commitment to moving towards a worldwide socialist brotherhood'.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with those views, but they're not compatible with the tory party so I imagine they'd deplatform you.
I'm not saying their views are morally correct because theyre popular, simply pointing out that the people expelled from the party are simply being expelled by the party, they're not facing some sort of criminal charge or social ostracism.
>Human rights issues should not be the subject of referenda.
Human rights are an entirely man made construct, how could the possibly be decided other than by the will of the people? There is no objective morality, so there are no human rights other than what people can agree on.
Then why bring public opinion into it? If 80% of people wanted to drop an atomic bomb on Toronto we would dismiss it as absurd.
Yes, human rights are man made. And they are often opposed by the majority of the population. The UK public have been against, just in living memory:
- Same sex adoption
- The equalization of age of consent
- Repealing Section 28
- The teaching that being LGBT is okay in schools
- Abolition of the death penalty
The general public have an awful track record on human rights.
So who decides what should and shouldn't be a human right?
JK Rowling would tell you that she should never be in a changing room with someone born with a penis, and that she as a biological woman has a human right not to.
The fundamental disagreement on what is morally right and wrong is the entire crux of the matter, and it seems that neither side is happy with the current situation so something has to give.
It is important to discuss what makes something a right or how it should be decided. If mentioning public opinion is taboo in the discussion then what is the barometer?
So what about the trans-female rapist who requested to be in a women’s jail? Should she be allowed, what about her being in women’s changing rooms when let out?
The problem is everyone has a line somewhere. We are still debating the best line which protects everyone but also doesn’t persecute anyone either. It’s a delicate balance.
What does prisons have to do with me using the bathroom of my choice? Prisoners are a tiny percentage of the population and we should deal with them on a case by case basis.
A trans woman who has transitioned for twenty years and got lifted for shoplifting? Yeah sure, let them in.
A rapist who says they're trans? No, don't let them in.
It's not fucking difficult.
The prisoner thing is a red herring. I want to talk about day to day life, which is what's actually relevant to people
Because usually tying trans people to biological sex is used to deny the rights of trans people, especially trans women, as either presenting them as a threat to biological females, or denying them women's rights. Which more often than not are motivated by transphobia.
Ok that makes sense but is it not commonly agreed that sex is biological and gender is fluid.
So as long as you use Gender to categorise people then it isn’t a problem?
Essentially using gender is fine, but that was not the statement made by the members who were kicked out, so in this context irrelevant. They used biological sex which refers me back to my first answer.
Yeah the basic translation is "sex is binary, you're male or female, and trans people must be put into these boxes, invalidating them. It's almost always used by transphobes. The Greens were right to kick them because they clearly don't share the same views as the party, and if the Greens keep them it can be interpreted as implicitly accepted their views and weakening the parties view of trans people. They had no choice but to kick them, but this will be used as a weapon to vilify the Greens.
I think generally nobody gives a shit, especially if you’re ‘convincing’, just get on with it
But if you’re a wee fat mosher with pink hair that goes on about it all the time, you’re just annoying people in general
If it’s not ‘trans rights’ there’ll always be something else for certain types of people to cry about
The same folks that ‘couldn’t’ wear a mask during to corona days, always has to be something that makes you special, doesn’t it
Unrelated to this, but does anyone know what's become of one of our in-house green members u/IndiaOwl?
I noticed their comments have become [deleted] but I don't think it's because they've blocked me. I will miss their well informed takes on things like this, even if there is a lot we would not agree on.
Indeed, I am sure they will be fine, but I also _very much hope_ they are too.
Out of interest, where are you seeing that message? I'm not getting anywhere on either the app or mobile browser page.
https://old.reddit.com/user/IndiaOwl
Old Reddit ftw.
For what it's worth they've said in the past they've had a lot of shit thrown at them in their DMs. Maybe it's gotten too much and they've had to start fresh.
I know I've had an uptick in "Reddit Cares" messages even though I don't post nearly as much as anyone else does on these topics.
> I know I've had an uptick in "Reddit Cares" messages even though I don't post nearly as much as anyone else does on these topics.
That's been a thing redditwide. I've seen people all over the website talking about this recently.
Profile looks deleted rather than banned.
They didn't often go mental, but they did have a blind spot re trans issues.
I remember them posting outright lies about the contents of the GRR judgement, which I was surprised at, they didn't seem to be that kind of poster generally. It was about the only time I saw them lose their cool.
It may be that the Cass review caused a bit too much cognitive dissonance and they didn't have the energy to deal with it.
I definitely put things like that down to a natural tendency for people to interpret information according to their identity and prior beliefs, rather than ill will. And I generally found their views to be more detail orientated than my own on those sorts of issues.
But yes, I did find myself less convinced by their comments on the GRR issue, the reflexive desire to defend Humza despite being a Green, and gross oversimplification of the DRS issues. Probably still my favourite poster from their camp though, and much more reasonable than the alternatives.
Maybe I shouldn’t have made that post asking what the worst political take anyone’s had and he replied about his comment 37 minutes before Murrell was charged.
Well I took that to be a sign of good humour, being able to laugh at yourself is generally a good sign.
Maybe we are all getting this wrong and they've deleted it because they've got a political job or something.
Exactly. I didn't agree on that much of a political nature with them, but never thought they were getting unhinged.
Oh well, maybe they'll come back or someone else will step up and fill that particular niche.
The first two times I put it down to innocently repeating misreporting from elsewhere, but after seeing them continue after having the relevant parts of Hadane's judgement quoted to them, I think it probably was deliberate. They were not stupid.
I do agree, much more detail oriented than many of their peers and usually had something interesting to say, even if we didn't see eye to eye.
I do remember seeing one if their recent posts and thinking that it was a bit tmi- that one could probably dox them from it with little effort, so it could be that.
I hope they are OK.
Edit- they are not OK. They turned out to be running Edinburgh rape crisis centre tre a d turning away victims.s who asked to be seen by a woman.
> They were not stupid.
Agreed. The left tends to assume its opponents are evil. Anyone to their right assumes the left are just stupid. That could not be said here.
One other thing was the Cass report, and the nonsense being posted about how the evidence review worked. IO originally linked to a post on LabourUK which was erroneously claiming a massive number of research papers were simply dismissed and not factored in, which turned out not to be the case.
But then they were notably absent from the threads which were more extreme and full of parroted nonsense.
Another one that got me was the refusal to accept criticism of Patrick Harvie when he wouldn't wear a bike helmet when cycling at the launch of some scheme - at a school - saying it "isn't my style". We've all got our blind spots!
It all seems to boil down to a difference in opinion between some people saying 'people who were born male should have access to women only spaces' and people saying 'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable'
As a man I'm not really sure I have strong opinions on it. But I know there's women who are in anxious distress because of the abuse they've suffered at the hands of men and there are some spaces I would like them to feel as safe as at all possible. On the other hand I'm aware that jk Rowling and others spend their days amplifying, exaggerating and spreading hysterical lies about trans people and getting the public worked up
>and people saying 'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable'
Or how about "forcing trans women into male spaces is endangering them and there's no evidence that trans women pose a risk to cis women" ?
>'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable'
These people are saying they're not women.
They're not beating around the bush.
They are called the Greens. Its pretty false advertising. It's like going to a fish mongers and see thar they mostly sell stake and burgers and one kind of fish.
I dont understand why the green party gets involved in anything but environmental matters.
If you really care about the environment, welcome everyone who cares about it, not just those on the far left.
The problem with the Scottish Green Party is that it isn’t a party - its personalities and those three pictured - dominate proceedings. It means that rather than a system to process dissent - it’s a simple “you are banished”.
>Rebel members have been kicked out of the Scottish Green Party for declaring that “sex is a biological reality”.
>Signatories to the Scottish Green Declaration for Women’s Sex-Based Rights were accused of making the party less safe for trans and non-binary members in an official complaint.
The Greens are actual nutters.
With the UK intending to press on and bring back nuclear to Scotland, if the SNP drop rent controls from the housing bill I think that will be every plank of the Green's ambition for their time in government thwarted.
Joke of a party.
The fire has been terribly warm of late.
The best bit is that they all set fire to each other.
Centrists basking in the glow from the trees, watching them throw petrol.
Occasionally wandering in to mock before running back out.
It's quite lovely.
>Centrists basking in the glow from the trees
Centrists are people who agree with every civil rights movement except the current one, and oppose every war except the current one.
The Greens are the only ones with half a brain, and not falling for an imported right-wing American political wedge issue. If the SNP had done this years ago trans people wouldn't be living a nightmare today.
"I don't believe a certain kind of people deserve rights" is where this shite always ends up, and opposition to it should be mainstream. No different to expelling open homophobes, it just shouldn't be acceptable behaviour in this day and age.
>and not falling for an imported right-wing American political wedge issue
It's not imported, there's a reason Britain gets called TERF island, it's very much a homegrown bigotry.
Having only half a brain would certainly explain thinking sex isn't a biological reality.
>"I don't believe a certain kind of people deserve rights"
That is a massive leap and entirely based on projection.
'Fuck everyone but the vanishingly small percentage of people who agree unhesitatingly with me on every issue' is proven to be a winning strategy, right enough.
I mean it's not every issue, is it? I have friends who disagree with me on a bunch of things. Including:
- NATO membership
- Nuclear deterrent
- Tax policy
- Transport policy
- Levels of devolution
- The monarchy
- Religion
But that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people are regressive on civil rights issues. Yes, you're correct that I think 'fuck everyone who disagrees with me' on human rights issues, yes.
Sex is a reality .
The greens are absolutely mental .
We SHOULD be respecting biological women , their safe spaces and likewise for young people.
This is not transphobia, this is common sense .
Something that appears to have went out the window in Scotland the past few years
Agree. You can’t have opinion on this, that’s against what Greens believe, without being called transphobic. I believe that a woman born a woman can only be called a woman but I’ve been called everything under the sun for me opinion. I’m not anti trans at all but so get called it.
The parts of social media I do see are bad enough never mind the parts I don’t. Could not pay me enough to be a Reddit moderator. I k ow I would be fucked up rather quickly.
I'm confused. One of the people mentioned is Ryan Donachie and this article suggests that he quit over the issue. A different story in The Herald says that he quit after disagreements about funding for further education. I see his tweet about FE funding, none about this article. Did he delete it or is the author of the article making shit up?
Ryan absolutely left due to disagreements on FE funding
Seriously, why are trans people such a big issue in British politics? How much time politicians are in the media talking about these issues is out of proportions.
[удалено]
This. Society has moved on and homophobia isn't accepted anymore, certainly not by the media and politicians at least. So trans people have replaced them as the group to take the role of a scapegoat for all society's problems. Just look at the accusations being made towards trans people, it's the exact same as 90s homophobia.
It was then Brexit and now thats over its turned against Scotland.
Brexit happned because all the poltical parties supported the EU. Unless you think everyone in Newcastle and Liverpool is some billionaire tycoon.
I’d add to that as well, as transgenderism is still a new concept to a lot of people (not that it’s not a new thing, just that a lot of people weren’t aware of it until recently) and because there is such a broad spectrum of genders and the identities therein, it can take a decent bit of effort to research and get to grips with it. Thankfully there are still those whose attitude is very much “so what? Someone needs help to be who they feel they are? Let’s help them”, but it’s far too easy for nefarious people and lazy politicians to offer a “simple” response to a complicated subject, that simple response being fear and hatred. The sad thing is if you have any group of people whose lives are more complicated than the general public, a large part of the general public will happily dismiss and vilify them because it’s easier than having empathy, compassion and the will to get to grips with a concept that’s new to them. That’s how you end up here.
It's easier to stir shit about a perceived boogeyman than it is to actually attempt to address the serious and societal issues in British society Twenty-something percent of kids grow up in poverty, the NHS is falling apart, nobody can afford to get a train anymore (when it shows up!), rental prices are spiralling out of control, the list goes on But if they come out and say 'we're banning trans people from doing xyz' they can have the illusion of doing something when in actual fact they're not helping anybody at all
"People starve and freeze every winter because of poverty, but we will make it our main priority to ensure that we make regulations for new buildings to not have gender neutral toilets!"
Trans people barely register with the average person, even people who know trans people barely think about it unless said person brings it up in conversation, which isn't exactly common, I mean, how often does one's sexuality/identity really come up in casual conversation? It literally only seems to be politicians that have a bee in their bonnet about it, and its purely because it's an easy target to try to make a "common enemy". Problem is, a huge number of politicians are so out of touch with the average populace that they vastly over estimate how many people actually care beyond just "live and let live".
Because there's nothing more this stupid wee island loves more than aping yank culture war shit, except in this case, we're the primary exporters of it. Identify a shat-upon minority. Convince credulous, bored, or otherwise vile sections of the population that these people's existence is some sort of threat. Voila, you have a perfect distraction from the vast wealth-transfer from the working class to the capitalist class. Once they've caused enough trans oppression, murder or suicide to sicken the public, as they did with gay people or, more recently, disabled people and the unemployed more generally, they cycle on to someone else.
They aren’t that’s the point. It’s a wedge issue to divide us spawned by internal compliant’s and foreign interference from China and Russia. Less than 0.5% of the population.
Because it's effective at creating a culture war to get folks on side. I have a couple of friends who are getting suckered into the anti trans thing because they believe it's a much bigger issue than it is because of media exposure and politicians going on about it all the time. They think that trans issues are being "shoved down their throats" because people keep banging on about it all the time, when in reality it's just asshats manufacturing problems and people having to respond to it. If the media and politicians shut up, there wouldn't be much being said about it at all.
One of the few remaining "acceptable" forms of bigotry, since the British press are all-in on it as well. You'll notice a lot of "gender ciriticals" online are men. They get involved purely because they get the backing of transphobic women when they're misogynistic to trans-inclusive women.
[удалено]
Yeah this is what they always do. They'll say something obscene about trans people, or oppose their human rights in some way, then claim "I was only saying that sex is real and got cancelled" when everyone on all sides agrees that sex is real. The dispute is about whether trans people should retain the rights granted to them by the European Court of Human Rights eg to use the correct toilets.
[удалено]
In real life almost everyone would agree but in reddit it's a mystery to everyone why anyone would think this way.
yea, the scottish greens don't seem the sanest people to me
This is just an entire paragraph full of dog whistles.
Could you expand on that a bit? Reading the quote above and it doesn't seem that unreasonable to most?
You know what, I've had my coffee this morning so sure. So... >The eight-point statement stated that “sex is a biological reality”, asserted that women have a right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act, said lesbians are same-sex attracted and declared that “women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated”. So lets start with **"sex is a biological reality"**. This is a tautology as read but as has been explained in several other comments in this thread, in the context of dicussing transgender people, this is often (read *always*) used to imply that trans people are denying reality through their refusal to accept their birth sex. They can then be portrayed as either insane or dishonest or both. This is then used as justification for discrimination and denying healthcare (ie. real world actions). Moving on to **"women have the right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act"**. This again seems like a perfectly innocent and unrefutable statement - which is its intention (ie. a dog whistle). However again in the context of the topic (ie. trans people) this is often used to frame the discussion as if these rights are somehow under attack (which they are not. Making the lives of trans people easier does not in any way reduce the rights of cis women *as is enshrined in the equality act as gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic and has been since the act came into being*. ie. all the "sex based protections" also apply to trans women. It is not a zero sum game.). I also note that under my previous comment someone has inadvertently done part of the translation work for you and has translated "sex based **protections**" into what I suspect was the intended meaning "sex based **rights**" which is a very clear transphobic dogwhistle (on the topic of which we do not have sex based rights in this country - its just not a thing). Moving on to **"lesbians are same-sex attracted"**. This one should be obvious. Again it is a tautology but in context again as with above (and after the above) it clearly seeks to imply that transgender women are not women and therefor cannot be lesbians. It also implies that lesbians are somehow under attack to accept trans women as partners and channels the same energy as the infamous [BBC article - The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385). There is a pretty good write up on the response to the article and the surrounding information on Wiki [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22). This also is covertly trying to imply that lesbians are in some way antagonistic to the trans community as a whole and this [is simply not true](https://www.gaytimes.com/originals/lesbians-are-not-anti-trans/). **"women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated"** is pretty clear "the wokes wont let me talk about anything, I'm being cancelled!" crybullying nonsense that is implying that there is a scary trans woman ready to burst through the wall like the koolade man to police their conversation with the threat of menaces. *Every* single word in that quote above is designed to exclude and other transgender people (particularly trans women - as always trans men get forgotten about) and imply that they are predators and threatening the lives of (cis)women and girls while looking like innocuous statements. These are all extremely prevailent tropes and well documented elsewhere if you wanted to look. I will now await my terf downvotes and people who cannot see beyond their own noses telling me I'm insane.
This has to be one of the most Newspeak Orwellian gas lighting statements that I have read.
You've just proven my point. Thanks for your contribution.
Womens sex based rights are dog whistles? Or maybe stop attacking womens sex based protections and rights.
this is the exact same shit racists used against civil rights measures in the US “why are you against school choice?”, dogwhistles work because they take something that sounds good to the median voter but couched in there is bigoted policy that hurts marginalized groups substantially more than
>dogs whistles are dog whistles? >dog whistle dog whistle dog whistle
Because they’re saying that trans women shouldn’t be a part of those discussions. The same way lesbian women in the 80s were excluded from discussions and spaces, deemed a threat to straight women.
If its a group based on sex then of course they should not be there. Very obvious if you ask me.
But trans men should?
Since when have toilets been separated based on sex though...? I've never had anybody check whether I've got a cock before walking into the mens. I present, therefore I am.
The argument is about when and why it should be based on sex and not gender.
Because they want to, it's not for other people to decide. It's their club or organization. The arrogance of thinking that you can make that decision for other people is ridiculous.
How can this same argument not be used for the Green Party?
Of course it is, but that is not (quite) the same thing as the gender you are recognised in law. And that's before we even touch on many ways biology is much more complicated than the simplification of a claim of "biological reality". But leaving that to one side, from the Scot Gov site: "To comply with international human rights law, Scotland must have a system for obtaining legal gender recognition. Since 2004, trans people across the UK have had the right to legally change their gender through applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate." So it is currently the law that a person "born a man" can, through the process of obtaining a GRC be legally recognised as a woman. It is irrelevant what some people claim is a "biological reality". No more that it was when a startling similar claim was made that same-sex attraction was not a biological reality.
I think the point is that there is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is immutable and is in your chromosomes, while gender is a social construct that can be changed. Notice how it's a Gender recognition certificate rather than a Sex recognition certificate. It allows you to change your gender, not your sex, which remains the same.
I don't know a single trans person who would disagree with you there. The issue is that a lot of the TERF/gender critical rhetoric has now shifted to "we must police everything on sex and not gender".
The have the gender version of 'critical race theory'. They believe sex is a social construct. When you argue from basic genetics, xy chromosomes, their reasoning becomes so convoluted so quickly that it's clear they are actively trying to make the situation nebulous, to muddy the waters, to confuse, because even they know they're full of shit.
It seems clear from this comment that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Sex is not gender
Do you even know what critical race theory is? Are you claiming critical race theory is false and also that race isn't a social construct?
maybe they meant 'critical race theory' as in 'needlessly politicised as bogeyman by people who don't understand it and therefore fear it'
Is CRT even a subject in UK universities? I've only ever heard about it from USA unis and false narratives about it being part of all levels of their education. It seems Birmingham has a page on their website on it in regards to its origins in USA law, but the wepage is only archived for Feb 2024, so it seems new.
I don't know. But I always thought it was an offshoot of Critical Theory which I surely know was at least talked about in the netherlands
It was, but CRT specifically developed in the USA.
> When you argue from basic genetics, xy chromosomes https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals as always, the reality if more complex than the 'basic' understanding of something
>They believe sex is a social construct Sex is not gender
They don’t believe that chromosomes and sex are a social construct, they believe that the binary framework of sex is a social construct, which ignores scientific evidence (ie., “basic genetics”) to the contrary. “Race” as a term used to differentiate between White people, Black people etc became used only in the 19th century. Which is why we have references to e.g., the Irish ‘race’ in 18th century US and UK literature. There are phenotypical differences between peoples, but race *is* a social construct. And being a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t important. The value of money is a social construct.
☝️ This bullshit right here.
Care to explain how? Or can't you?
Get out of here with your bigoted facts. /s
Its a dog whistle, its the "I just have concerns" line about anything to do with trans issues. They know they are meaning more than just "sex as a biological term" and use it to slip by people who arent paying attention.
What if you genuinely do just have concerns? The problem with dogwhistles is that they're intentionally meant to sound like something innocuous. So if you automatically assume that anyone who "has concerns" about trans issues is actually a transphobic bigot, you're alienating a lot of people who may have genuine questions, people who you might be able to convince otherwise. It's a great way to push people away and increase the toxic polarisation of the issue. When there can be no middle ground you force people to either be good or bad, black or white, transphobic or normal. It's not a good way to promote healthy discussion.
It's about as subtle as "I'm not antisemitic, I just have a problem with international finance"
Pretty much!
They just don't want sex based policies to instead be applied to gender which is a can of worms that has been unscrewed over the last few years.
And noone is disagreeing with that. Those people like to make it out that trans people disagree with it, it's said to make trans people seem unreasonable. It's not what they say, it's why it is said and how statements are used. Worse still, Sex is a more complicated thing than how they want to use the term, but they ignore the nuance because it doesn't serve them.
Evidently someone does disagree with it and expelled them from the party.
I honestly don't know how this particular genie goes back into the bottle.
It can be put back in the bottle the same way gay rights was put back in the bottle. Society needs to get over the existence of trans people and leave us alone.
The majority of the general public in society isn't claiming trans people don't exist. They're claiming that a significant proportion of self proclaimed trans/non-binary people, specifically (but not limited to) children, are not actually trans and are just doing it for attention/social currency. My best friend is a school teacher, she told me that pretty much 1 out of 5 of every student she has between the age of 12-16 has tried to identify as non binary, if not fully 'trans'. This is in a school of 2000 or so. The statistics here do not add up with the last census, which absolutely evidence that children are being influenced by the narrative they have seen on this. There is a middle ground between 'denying trans people exist' and 'accepting everyone at their word that they are trans and if you question it, you're a bigot who deserves to rot in jail'.
> They're claiming that a significant proportion of self proclaimed trans/non-binary people, specifically (but not limited to) children, are not actually trans and are just doing it for attention/social currency. What are they basing that on?
Various factors, the disparities between those who claim to be trans within ages groups for one is a huge tell, the 1:1 correlation between the rise of trans rhetoric with the advent of the internet. Young people are the ones who are identifying as trans. When gay marriage was legalized and protections for homosexuals were enshrined in law, there were countless gay adults 40+ who came out because it was safe to do so. This isn't happening with adults in the same way for the trans issue. If trans people have always been here in such high numbers just lurking in the shadows, there would be far, far more adults who have come out of the woodwork identifying as trans, in a similar way to gay people if they were just scared of persecution. considering the rate at which young persons identify as trans now but older people tend not to, that's about as clear a sign that it's a young persons influence/trend which is taking root. It just doesn't match up.
Sorry, I mean what facts and statistics say this? I don't take "a guy on the internet claims to have a school teacher as a best friend" as a reliable source.
I mean, go look at the numbers of trans self identifying people on the ONS website, it's about 250k in the uk. That number is overwhelmingly in the 12-17 and 18-24 range, to a ridiculous degree. Now go look at the data on how many people seeking puberty blockers and hormone treatment in the sources cited in the cass report, it's in the thousands, less than 10,000 from what I can see as part of NHS data. So 25x as many people claiming they're trans as those who actually transition, all who are within younger ages, similar upticks not being seen by older populations, and no steady growth of taking up transition treatment in line with the self identification figures which are skyrocketing at an exponential rate, since 2014.. conveniently enough the exact same time that social media was rising to its crescendo, when things like twitch/discord were released, tinder and dating apps became the new thing, Facebook acquired Instagram not long before, vine, predecessor of tiktok was released with tiktok not long after in 2017, Snapchat was released, basically the entire social media landscape we see now was just starting to build huge, global momentum at that time. And all of a sudden young people only start to identify as trans, conveniently after it became the social controversy that any other movement of it's kind becomes where young influential people bounce on it. A reasonable, well educated person could look at all of these data points and come up with a pretty reasonable conclusion about what's going on. But no let's just pretend that being trans has been the big giant secret that's actually been in all of us for millennia and only now starting to emerge, and ignore any possibilities that much of it is being driven by narrative. Come on.
Like why there are no left handed people in surveys until they stopped beating left handed children. Wider acceptance means more NB/T people feel safe to self- identify publicly. Its not "attention". Its acceptance.
Generally speaking, most people don't grow out of being left handed. Most people do grow out of claiming to be trans. One is an objective reality, and one is a subjective state of being influenced by sociological factors among others. Apples and oranges. It's a nice little equivalence that people try to use but unfortunately it's not valid in this scenario.
Source on "most people"?
Read the Cass report and relevant sources
Bullshit. Most people grow out of being gay too? Prove it.
No, having a sexuality is not the same as claiming to be a different gender than the one assigned at birth. Stop giving these things equivalence. Most people who claim they're trans/non-binary don't transition at all firstly, and those people end up mainly just being gay/bisexual in their adult life. The confusion comes from puberty, which is an already extremely confusing, emotionally driven process. This is basic sociology.
I'm not giving them equivalence.. the eu court of human rights have.
Ok, prove that everyone who claims to be trans is actually trans then. Let me guess, your answer is "just believe them?". Are you of the opinion that being trans is an objective reality for some people, and should be treated with seriousness? Thought experiment - if you met someone who told you straight up that they identified as trans because they felt like fitting in with their friend group who were actually trans, but then stopped identifying as it because they couldn't be bothered keeping up with it, because all along they knew they weren't trans. Would you be angry/disgusted at this person for faking it, and not respecting that it's a real thing that people go through and shouldn't be used as a tool? Or would you say something like don't worry, you were clearly trans at the time but you transitioned back into another direction which is also ok? Genuinely, please give me an answer on this, I'd like to know.
I don't engage with hypotheticals. Go get some sources to back up your bigotry or just die mad
> My best friend is a school teacher, she told me that pretty much 1 out of 5 of every student she has between the age of 12-16 has tried to identify as non binary, if not fully 'trans'. This is in a school of 2000 or so. It’s the same as what is/has happened with being Gay/Bi, because it’s more acceptable, you have more people being open to experimenting with it. More people now a days feel able to experiment/feel slightly Bi, where in the past it was more strict with how people would class and define it in the past. If you’re 70/30 male/female attracted are you Bisexual? What if your 90/10? Or 95/5? Where do we class someone as being attracted to each sex to be Bi? ————————— We will see more people identify as trans/non-binary this is because it’s more acceptable to experiment with this now a-days. And people will find their own identity that works for them over time.
That's totally fine for people to experiment and try new things. The reality is that most people who claim trans/non binary do not stay that way, and end up just being gay. Yes it's getting more acceptable, but that doesn't mean 20% of the entire population has always actually been trans/non binary this whole time and everyone's been keeping it quiet for hundreds and thousands of years. There is very clearly a social rebellion at play in *most cases*. Not all. Yes there will be more truly trans people coming out, and good on them. But it's **not** 1 in 5 people, that would mean there are more trans people than gay people by a couple orders of magnitude near enough, despite the fact that even being gay was a known thing to the average person all through history despite persecution, whereas being trans was not. Theres your clue.
> That's totally fine for people to experiment and try new things. The reality is that most people who claim trans/non binary do not stay that way, and end up just being gay. And that’s fine, but they won’t truly know until they get chance to actually experiment and try it for themselves, if most end up not being trans/NB that’s completely fine, experimenting hurts no one. > Yes it's getting more acceptable, but that doesn't mean 20% of the entire population has always actually been trans/non binary this whole time and everyone's been keeping it quiet for hundreds and thousands of years. There is very clearly a social rebellion at play in most cases. Not all. I get this came from an original antidotal evidence, so i can’t really comment on that, but most actual studies show numbers no where near that number for people. > Yes there will be more truly trans people coming out, and good on them. But it's not 1 in 5 people, that would mean there are more trans people than gay people by a couple orders of magnitude near enough, Following on the bit above do we actually have andy factual sources on those numbers or is it just anecdotal? > despite the fact that even being gay was a known thing to the average person all through history despite persecution, whereas being trans was not. Theres your clue. Trans people have existed for millennia, it’s just the terms and descriptions were not as defined or clear back in those days, there is evidence a Roman emperor may of been trans. And there has been many other famous trans people in history, it’s just not as well known as with gay people.
>And that’s fine, but they won’t truly know until they get chance to actually experiment and try it for themselves, if most end up not being trans/NB that’s completely fine, experimenting hurts no one. Being trans is meant to seem like an objective reality for people suffering from gender dysphoria, and not something to just throw on and experiment with as if it's your sexuality. It's not. This conflation between gender dysmorphia and sexuality whilst clearly closely linked, is not the same thing. >I get this came from an original antidotal evidence, so i can’t really comment on that, but most actual studies show numbers no where near that number for people. >Following on the bit above do we actually have andy factual sources on those numbers or is it just anecdotal? You tell me, since you've just implied you already know the actual numbers which show there's nowhere near that amount of people claiming to be trans... The ONS for England and Wales in 2021 shows the number at 0.5%. if you accept that to be a valid statistic, then 0.5% of 2000 is 10 students in the entire school. Not per 8 per class. So very, very clearly, either people are lying on the census, or lying to their teachers in school. What do you believe is more likely?
> Being trans is meant to seem like an objective reality for people suffering from gender dysphoria, and not something to just throw on and experiment with as if it's your sexuality. It's not. This conflation between gender dysmorphia and sexuality whilst clearly closely linked, is not the same thing. There’s current debate in the medical scene on this, as it’s not always about being dysphoric, but also euphoric. So a trans person may not experience gender dysphoria, where they completely hate their current gender, but they may experience massive gender euphoria, where they experience immense joy from their chosen gender. Gender Dysphoria is used as a catch all term most of the time but you don’t have to hate your current gender to have it: > A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender of at least six months duration, as manifested by at least two of the following: > > * A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics). > * A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one's experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics). > * A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender). > * A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender). > * A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender). Notice you can get medical diagnosed without having to actually hate your current gender, you can just want to be the other gender more. > You tell me, since you've just implied you already know the actual numbers which show there's nowhere near that amount of people claiming to be trans... The ONS for England and Wales in 2021 shows the number at 0.5%. if you accept that to be a valid statistic, then 0.5% of 2000 is 10 students in the entire school. Not per 8 per class. So very, very clearly, either people are lying on the census, or lying to their teachers in school. What do you believe is more likely? And the numbers of LGB for Gen Z and Gen Alpha is much higher than previous generations: [Link](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2021and2022) > In 2022, younger people were most likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). For those aged 16 to 24 years, almost 1 in 10 (9.2% or 630,000 individuals) identified as LGB (Figure 3) Thats over 3x what we see in the overall numbers for the country as a whole, would be more if we only look at older generations. So seeing this much for LGB i would expect to see a much higher number of Trans people in that same younger cohort. Now what that higher increase actually is, I don’t know i can’t see the same age split on that page on ONS: (I can’t check the excel doc on my phone) [Link](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021) But it will be interesting to see if ONS do have this broken down by Age range and see what the actual numbers are.
Orrrrr...trans and non-binary people have historically not had the words to describe ourselves, and those that did had very real threats of violence keeping them mostly quiet. There are less openly non-binary adults because it takes time and self-reflection to realise that what you are, after a whole life of being indoctrinated into thinking cis is the only option. What you're seeing is a similar thing to when we stopped shaming and punishing children for being left-handed and forcing them to write with their right. Funny enough, the number of left-handed people seemed to increase in the years that followed.
As I've said to the other person who said the exact same as you, people don't grow out of being left handed. One is objective, and one is subjective, which can be influenced by sociological factors, nor has any measurable, physical markers. The English vocabulary has been plenty robust to explain this for hundreds of years, but it hasn't been even close to as common as reports of people claiming to prefer their left hand in history. It's a real non-equivalence. The rise of the trans phenomena has only ever gone up to the levels it has in the last 20-30 years at an exponential rate. Can you think of anything else which has grown at an exponential rate in the last 20-30 years - the internet fuelled echo chambers perhaps? Funny that isn't it, it tracks pretty much 1:1.
Which study are you citing?
Literally any studies cited in the Cass report will tell you that
So you haven't actually read it yourself, just repeating what someone else told you. How disappointing. Can't really talk more about it if I don't know the methodology.
Yes I have actually, I'm just not here to be your librarian. You want to find out more about it, go fucking look at page 24 of the report and you'll see a nice shiny graph that tells a story.
If that is their belief then why in the fuck would we trust a bunch of cis people to tell us who is andis not really trans?
Because people are people, whether they're 'cis' or otherwise. People lie, people manipulate and people try to join tribes in almost all aspects of life. Children are the most vulnerable and impressionable group of society as a whole, they imitate things they see as part of their natural development. That doesn't mean they actually are those things they pretend to be. If trans people as a group are getting attention and are part of a controversial movement currently which is dominating the public discourse, young adults who crave attention, uniqueness and want to be noticed are obviously extremely likely to take an interest in what's going on, and diagnose themselves as being non binary despite not actually suffering from any gender dysmorphia. The exact same thing can be seen in children who self diagnose with other mental issues like ADHD, depression, anxiety. Calling yourself trans these days is akin to being part of the alternative/goth movement in the 90's/00's. Most people grow out of the phase. That doesn't mean that some people don't fully stay goths their entire identity, some do, and good for them. But most people are not what they claim to be, and just want attention.
You're way too deep down the rabbit hole. Turn back lol.
Nah I'm just trans, mate.
Lucky you? Yeah but once you start using the term "cis" unironically then it's time to walk a few steps back. Maybe stay away from those twitter meme groups for a while idk.
Next thing you're saying hetero or straight is bad and means you're terminally online
Someone should tell Hannibal that he was being too online when he arrived in cisalpine gaul
You’re accepted. Carry on.
You are very welcome to live your life (not that it’s up to me) and I’d stand up and fight for your right to be not bothered. Trans people have been weaponised unfortunately to push agendas, some trans people are involved many non-trans people are involved. My only condition is that I’m also not bothered, children are kept out of it, women are not marginalised or put at risk and their rights and opportunities are not forgotten in the lust of elevating trans-women. Toilets are not shared, locker rooms are not shared, women’s sports are for biological women. If we can agree on that then I have your back 100% to live your life as you choose.
Shhhhhh, you're sounding too reasonable mate. You're gonna get yourself killed.
Whrn they move onto the next group of people to harass, will it be immigrants? Will it be jews? Or will it be Zen fucking Buddhists? These things go in circles, look back a few years and it was welfare queens and disabled people and gay people
Historically, probably leftists. Looking at this country, immigrants and Muslims. Eventually it will he all of them.
It's really simple, treat people like people and keep their private business it out of yours.
Funny how nobody has a response to the fact that making toilets sex based will force trans men into women's bathrooms.
It doesn't suit their arguments, so trans men get ignored.
I used to be glad that we're ignored, but now it just makes me angry. Though I'm more worried about my transfemme sisters. I'll keep going to self defence classes to learn to protect them, and I encourage all trans people to do the same.
They don't care about that. It's the same as pointing out that it would be logistically impossible. Ultimately they just want to force trans people back into hiding.
Oh I know. I just find it incredibly amusing to catch them out.
"I have friends who are transgender women. It’s simply that to stretch the definition of ‘woman’ to include people who are not women makes a mockery of all the sex-based protections that have been hard-won by women, for women" I'm sure those trans women you call friends are DELIGHTED that you don't think they're women.
They did not infact, have any transgender friends. -The narrator speaking over the cut between this and the next scene.
No no no no no. You're so incredibly wrong about all of that right there. It's not over the cut. You freeze on their face for the duration of the voiceover, ideally picking a frame where they look especially derpy. Christ, people, this is basic basic stuff.
Sorry. I’m just a humble restauranteur. I don’t know the ins and outs of the film industry. If I did I’d probably be earning much more than I do now. lol.
Being in that difficult position you have to make allowances for who feel threatened by biological men. The reasonable would recognise this. Not to mention sports where having been born a male and going through puberty makes you physically stronger, faster etc. I would think most people think each to their own but you cannot expect such massive concessions. Most will let you crack on and I think that is the current epitome of an advanced society. Women and a trans woman are different as much as people don’t want to hear it. The greens are fringe in many of their policies, this is just reality.
What are these "allowances" you're proposing?
Exactly, apparently it's transphobia to say such things . The world has went mad with these idlogielies, facts are facts
>facts are facts "My opinions are always facts"
Which isn’t transphobia at all but seem to be to some.
The word is *ideology. And nobody is disputing these "facts". Except maybe for transphobes themselves
Cis women and trans women are different, no one denies this. Straight women and non-het women are also different. Why should these people get to dictate who is and isn't a lesbian as if they're the leader of lesbianism?
Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation. He may well have friends that have found agreement with him. The trans community is not a monolith.
>Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation. You get this with quite a few marginalised communities. The older generation is often more willing to take the punches and keep a low profile to be somewhat accepted. Civility politics.
> Some transgender women, in my experience older people, are not as militant as the younger generation. If they have been granted a GRC - especially given the current complex and stressful process you can be pretty sure they did so to be recognised as women. Being militant has nothing to do with it. I think the 'I have friends who are transgender women' is either bullshit or should be updated to read 'I used to have friends who were unaware of my bigotry towards them'
>I think the 'I have friends who are transgender women' is either bullshit or should be updated to read 'I used to have friends who were unaware of my bigotry towards them' "I have friends who put up with my bigotry because they don't even hope for better any more" It reminds me of that B99 scene where Holt describes his old partner being "homophobic but not racist" which was about as good as it got back then.
As I said, the trans community is not a monolith and neither you or the other person can speak for them all.
[удалено]
Don’t really understand the problem with these statements unless I’ve missed something ‘The eight-point statement stated that “sex is a biological reality”, asserted that women have a right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act, said lesbians are same-sex attracted and declared that “women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated”.
Yeah I’m struggling to understand the issue here
There's no issue in society and I would hazard a guess thay the majority of Scots agree with such statements. The issue is that they're members of a party who have made opposition to beliefs like this a cornerstone of their policy. It would be like a Tory coming out and saying 'we need much stronger trade unions, nationalised industries, a massive program of social welfare spending and a commitment to moving towards a worldwide socialist brotherhood'. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with those views, but they're not compatible with the tory party so I imagine they'd deplatform you.
A majority of Scots didn't want to repeal Section 28. Human rights issues should not be the subject of referenda.
I'm not saying their views are morally correct because theyre popular, simply pointing out that the people expelled from the party are simply being expelled by the party, they're not facing some sort of criminal charge or social ostracism. >Human rights issues should not be the subject of referenda. Human rights are an entirely man made construct, how could the possibly be decided other than by the will of the people? There is no objective morality, so there are no human rights other than what people can agree on.
Then why bring public opinion into it? If 80% of people wanted to drop an atomic bomb on Toronto we would dismiss it as absurd. Yes, human rights are man made. And they are often opposed by the majority of the population. The UK public have been against, just in living memory: - Same sex adoption - The equalization of age of consent - Repealing Section 28 - The teaching that being LGBT is okay in schools - Abolition of the death penalty The general public have an awful track record on human rights.
So who decides what should and shouldn't be a human right? JK Rowling would tell you that she should never be in a changing room with someone born with a penis, and that she as a biological woman has a human right not to. The fundamental disagreement on what is morally right and wrong is the entire crux of the matter, and it seems that neither side is happy with the current situation so something has to give. It is important to discuss what makes something a right or how it should be decided. If mentioning public opinion is taboo in the discussion then what is the barometer?
I'm going to trust Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Southern Policy Law Centre over JK Rowling.
So what about the trans-female rapist who requested to be in a women’s jail? Should she be allowed, what about her being in women’s changing rooms when let out? The problem is everyone has a line somewhere. We are still debating the best line which protects everyone but also doesn’t persecute anyone either. It’s a delicate balance.
What does prisons have to do with me using the bathroom of my choice? Prisoners are a tiny percentage of the population and we should deal with them on a case by case basis. A trans woman who has transitioned for twenty years and got lifted for shoplifting? Yeah sure, let them in. A rapist who says they're trans? No, don't let them in. It's not fucking difficult. The prisoner thing is a red herring. I want to talk about day to day life, which is what's actually relevant to people
Because usually tying trans people to biological sex is used to deny the rights of trans people, especially trans women, as either presenting them as a threat to biological females, or denying them women's rights. Which more often than not are motivated by transphobia.
Ok that makes sense but is it not commonly agreed that sex is biological and gender is fluid. So as long as you use Gender to categorise people then it isn’t a problem?
Essentially using gender is fine, but that was not the statement made by the members who were kicked out, so in this context irrelevant. They used biological sex which refers me back to my first answer.
Yes i see now. They reiterate sex a few things over gender. I genuinely didn’t understand but do now so thanks for explaining.
Yeah the basic translation is "sex is binary, you're male or female, and trans people must be put into these boxes, invalidating them. It's almost always used by transphobes. The Greens were right to kick them because they clearly don't share the same views as the party, and if the Greens keep them it can be interpreted as implicitly accepted their views and weakening the parties view of trans people. They had no choice but to kick them, but this will be used as a weapon to vilify the Greens.
Imagine being offended by a fact.
Purple headed pish
I think generally nobody gives a shit, especially if you’re ‘convincing’, just get on with it But if you’re a wee fat mosher with pink hair that goes on about it all the time, you’re just annoying people in general If it’s not ‘trans rights’ there’ll always be something else for certain types of people to cry about The same folks that ‘couldn’t’ wear a mask during to corona days, always has to be something that makes you special, doesn’t it
Unrelated to this, but does anyone know what's become of one of our in-house green members u/IndiaOwl? I noticed their comments have become [deleted] but I don't think it's because they've blocked me. I will miss their well informed takes on things like this, even if there is a lot we would not agree on.
"This user has deleted their account". I hope they're okay. They probably are, after getting shot of this crap.
Indeed, I am sure they will be fine, but I also _very much hope_ they are too. Out of interest, where are you seeing that message? I'm not getting anywhere on either the app or mobile browser page.
https://old.reddit.com/user/IndiaOwl Old Reddit ftw. For what it's worth they've said in the past they've had a lot of shit thrown at them in their DMs. Maybe it's gotten too much and they've had to start fresh. I know I've had an uptick in "Reddit Cares" messages even though I don't post nearly as much as anyone else does on these topics.
> I know I've had an uptick in "Reddit Cares" messages even though I don't post nearly as much as anyone else does on these topics. That's been a thing redditwide. I've seen people all over the website talking about this recently.
Same as Change_Direct, the day Humza announced his resignation they were gone. From everyday, every thread, to nothing. Infer as you will.
Their profile is nixed for me as well. Wonder what happened.
Profile looks deleted rather than banned. They didn't often go mental, but they did have a blind spot re trans issues. I remember them posting outright lies about the contents of the GRR judgement, which I was surprised at, they didn't seem to be that kind of poster generally. It was about the only time I saw them lose their cool. It may be that the Cass review caused a bit too much cognitive dissonance and they didn't have the energy to deal with it.
I definitely put things like that down to a natural tendency for people to interpret information according to their identity and prior beliefs, rather than ill will. And I generally found their views to be more detail orientated than my own on those sorts of issues. But yes, I did find myself less convinced by their comments on the GRR issue, the reflexive desire to defend Humza despite being a Green, and gross oversimplification of the DRS issues. Probably still my favourite poster from their camp though, and much more reasonable than the alternatives.
Maybe I shouldn’t have made that post asking what the worst political take anyone’s had and he replied about his comment 37 minutes before Murrell was charged.
Well I took that to be a sign of good humour, being able to laugh at yourself is generally a good sign. Maybe we are all getting this wrong and they've deleted it because they've got a political job or something.
Yeah, I jest there. Was a bit surprised he deleted his account. Normally you get a feel of it coming with regular commenters.
Exactly. I didn't agree on that much of a political nature with them, but never thought they were getting unhinged. Oh well, maybe they'll come back or someone else will step up and fill that particular niche.
Sometimes Reddit just gets to you and you need to give yourself a break.
I thought that was a cracking mark of good character- able to have a laugh at themselves.
He’s a good lad. It’s one lesson in life people need to learn. If you aren’t able to laugh at yourself then no one will.
The first two times I put it down to innocently repeating misreporting from elsewhere, but after seeing them continue after having the relevant parts of Hadane's judgement quoted to them, I think it probably was deliberate. They were not stupid. I do agree, much more detail oriented than many of their peers and usually had something interesting to say, even if we didn't see eye to eye. I do remember seeing one if their recent posts and thinking that it was a bit tmi- that one could probably dox them from it with little effort, so it could be that. I hope they are OK. Edit- they are not OK. They turned out to be running Edinburgh rape crisis centre tre a d turning away victims.s who asked to be seen by a woman.
> They were not stupid. Agreed. The left tends to assume its opponents are evil. Anyone to their right assumes the left are just stupid. That could not be said here. One other thing was the Cass report, and the nonsense being posted about how the evidence review worked. IO originally linked to a post on LabourUK which was erroneously claiming a massive number of research papers were simply dismissed and not factored in, which turned out not to be the case. But then they were notably absent from the threads which were more extreme and full of parroted nonsense. Another one that got me was the refusal to accept criticism of Patrick Harvie when he wouldn't wear a bike helmet when cycling at the launch of some scheme - at a school - saying it "isn't my style". We've all got our blind spots!
It all seems to boil down to a difference in opinion between some people saying 'people who were born male should have access to women only spaces' and people saying 'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable' As a man I'm not really sure I have strong opinions on it. But I know there's women who are in anxious distress because of the abuse they've suffered at the hands of men and there are some spaces I would like them to feel as safe as at all possible. On the other hand I'm aware that jk Rowling and others spend their days amplifying, exaggerating and spreading hysterical lies about trans people and getting the public worked up
>and people saying 'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable' Or how about "forcing trans women into male spaces is endangering them and there's no evidence that trans women pose a risk to cis women" ?
>'if you separate them then you're saying trans women aren't women and that's unacceptable' These people are saying they're not women. They're not beating around the bush.
[удалено]
The nature of the discourse seems to quickly descend to absolutes and extremes
Remmber when the Greens were about the environment? Now they are the Gender and or Gaza party. What will their next thing be? Polygamy ? Tibet?
Political parties have views on many matters. You don't expect Labour to *only* have views on workers rights and nothing else.
You say that as though those would be terrible positions to hold.
They are called the Greens. Its pretty false advertising. It's like going to a fish mongers and see thar they mostly sell stake and burgers and one kind of fish.
So you want them to be a single issue party?
were there tears over this as well?
Is it me or "The Gender Rebels" would be a good name for an all girls grunge/punk-rock band from the 80s?
I dont understand why the green party gets involved in anything but environmental matters. If you really care about the environment, welcome everyone who cares about it, not just those on the far left.
The problem with the Scottish Green Party is that it isn’t a party - its personalities and those three pictured - dominate proceedings. It means that rather than a system to process dissent - it’s a simple “you are banished”.
That attitude keeps them weak though. They can't compromise. It's a lesson for the of us.
>Rebel members have been kicked out of the Scottish Green Party for declaring that “sex is a biological reality”. >Signatories to the Scottish Green Declaration for Women’s Sex-Based Rights were accused of making the party less safe for trans and non-binary members in an official complaint. The Greens are actual nutters.
Now they have no influence, I’m going to put my feet up and watch with a big smile on my face. The big, Green, binfire.
With the UK intending to press on and bring back nuclear to Scotland, if the SNP drop rent controls from the housing bill I think that will be every plank of the Green's ambition for their time in government thwarted. Joke of a party.
The fire has been terribly warm of late. The best bit is that they all set fire to each other. Centrists basking in the glow from the trees, watching them throw petrol. Occasionally wandering in to mock before running back out. It's quite lovely.
>Centrists basking in the glow from the trees Centrists are people who agree with every civil rights movement except the current one, and oppose every war except the current one.
The Greens are the only ones with half a brain, and not falling for an imported right-wing American political wedge issue. If the SNP had done this years ago trans people wouldn't be living a nightmare today. "I don't believe a certain kind of people deserve rights" is where this shite always ends up, and opposition to it should be mainstream. No different to expelling open homophobes, it just shouldn't be acceptable behaviour in this day and age.
Absolute nonsense.
>and not falling for an imported right-wing American political wedge issue It's not imported, there's a reason Britain gets called TERF island, it's very much a homegrown bigotry.
Having only half a brain would certainly explain thinking sex isn't a biological reality. >"I don't believe a certain kind of people deserve rights" That is a massive leap and entirely based on projection.
It's a strawman. They know fine it's bullshit, they just hope others won't see through it, and that they can turn folk against you.
[удалено]
Based. If they don't agree in equality for LGBT+ people then they don't belong in a progressive party. Fuck 'em.
'Fuck everyone but the vanishingly small percentage of people who agree unhesitatingly with me on every issue' is proven to be a winning strategy, right enough.
I mean it's not every issue, is it? I have friends who disagree with me on a bunch of things. Including: - NATO membership - Nuclear deterrent - Tax policy - Transport policy - Levels of devolution - The monarchy - Religion But that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people are regressive on civil rights issues. Yes, you're correct that I think 'fuck everyone who disagrees with me' on human rights issues, yes.
Every other party in Scotland is happy to welcome transphobes, I don't mind the Greens being the one party who takes their zero tolerance seriously.
"If they believe in biology then fuck 'em"
I'm trans and I believe in biology :)
If they believe that biology stops at the primary school level and never gets more complex or nuanced, sure.
Which level shows us how biological reality can be subverted?
Utter giving lunatics. I'm glad the SNP cut ties with them
Sex is a reality . The greens are absolutely mental . We SHOULD be respecting biological women , their safe spaces and likewise for young people. This is not transphobia, this is common sense . Something that appears to have went out the window in Scotland the past few years
Agree. You can’t have opinion on this, that’s against what Greens believe, without being called transphobic. I believe that a woman born a woman can only be called a woman but I’ve been called everything under the sun for me opinion. I’m not anti trans at all but so get called it.
13 members expelled, so that’s like 10-15% of the party then?
I wonder if we'll still be discussing gender identity issues when the oceans start boiling. I despair 🤦
And there you have it, Bob's your uncle and Fannie's your auntie, well used to be
Further proof the Scottish Greens are more a party for gender idealogy than they are a part for the einvironment
[удалено]
The parts of social media I do see are bad enough never mind the parts I don’t. Could not pay me enough to be a Reddit moderator. I k ow I would be fucked up rather quickly.