Amnesty International say - 'no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’'

I know two people who were born as males but have transitioned and now live as females. I genuinely don't understand why it bothers anybody. They're not males with dresses on - they're females as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why something personal to them has become a political issue.

Loislovesstewie

As with a lot of arguments today, unless a person agrees 100% with a particular position some will argue that makes that person anti (whatever) Often nothing could be further from the truth. Reasoned debate is required, it shouldn't be the case that the person who shouts the loudest wins, neither should governments make bad laws to appease a minority.
I will say again; I have no issues with trans people, I just want natal women to be protected too.

Hear, hear!

The trans debate is one where I am sometimes genuinely afraid to say what I think. Not on here, but I often say nothing in some areas of my life, as I know that if I gave my (non-extreme) views, or even expressed uncertainty about what I think I would be condemned.

I am not at all transphobic - I genuinely believe that people should live their best lives and be assisted in doing so by the rest of society - but I do not think that children should be given puberty blockers or that adult women should be subsumed into some sort of collective 'non-male' category that includes anyone who wants to join.

Stifling debate is not at all healthy, as there is a lot about this subject about which I am unsure, and I doubt that I am alone in this. The current 'with us or against us' stance taken by many trans activists forces people to take positions before they have had a chance to fully evaluate them, which can't be a good thing.

Whatever my views, the direction of the debate and its outcome is unlikely to impact on me at all, but if, as a society, we are forced either to jump to a position or to opt out of any debate, (which many people like me on the less radical end of the spectrum will do), the result will affect the well-being of others who have already been dealt a difficult hand, and will ultimately be 'won' by extremists of one stripe or the other.

It's a matter of acquiring equal protection for all because equal protection didn't exist to begin with- All people are created equal but never recognized as such from birth-

Many benefit from identity, as individuals as well as groups, and many suffer from such a result- However, in the end, identity serves the greater good-

Until all lives matter, identity is the only legal tool we have to prove that people are not seen or treated as equals- And we will have to suffer collectively through many transistions due to not seeing each other as equals from the beginning-

No it's the logical progression of applying risk assessment to all people If that risk assessment doesn't work for one group of people how can it be guaranteed to work for another?

I think that's called "whataboutery", trisher.

I was thinkng about omen's refuges and how they protect women. There are it is widely known a number of lesbian women who physically assault and dominate their partner. When women are assessed for entry into a refuge one of the issues explored is if there is any history of violence in the applicants past. Aggressive lesbians are therefore excluded, but if the theory is right and the risk assessments are not fit for purpose and do not provide adequate protection for vulnerable women then the only logical way to ensure women's safety is to exclude all lesbians. After all if an agressive transwoman can slip through the safeguarding procedures so could an agressive lesbian. If the issue is women's safety and not transphobia this would seem to be the logical course.

As with a lot of arguments today, unless a person agrees 100% with a particular position some will argue that makes that person anti (whatever) Often nothing could be further from the truth. Reasoned debate is required, it shouldn't be the case that the person who shouts the loudest wins, neither should governments make bad laws to appease a minority.
I will say again; I have no issues with trans people, I just want natal women to be protected too.

The inaccuracies and lack of understanding in that article from Pink News are breathtaking, strangely enough many wonens groups also watched the whole proceedings and came up with a different assessment.

Yes I always use the word sex, the protected characteristic in the equality act.

Nobody cares less how people dress or present themselves.

It comes down to words again. Biological sex is one thing. Gender is something else entirely. How we dress and present ourselves is completely down to each individual. Most of us are probably quite relaxed about that.

We are in such a pickle with definitions. While ever we use sex and gender as interchangeable words we will stay in a pickle.

One of the things challenged by 70s feminists was the gender expectations for women- dress, behaviour, employment. It was why they burned their bras. The idea that gender is something which is not fixed that it is a social construct began with them and it is perpetuated through feminists who support transgender people.
Chewbacca The women are entitled to their viewpoint and need reassurance, but that reassurance isn't supplied by victimising others, it is done through explaining and maintaining good risk assessment and security for the safety of everyone.

Thanks for that article trisher.

While the refuge issue may be resolved, according to pink news, refuges is just one of the multitude of potential problems where biology meets an individuals feelings.

It all boils down to an agreed definition of what is a woman. I believe that the official definition is adult human female. This has served us well over the years and has only recently been seen a contentious.

I'm still with JKR

So the women who wrote that letter are just transphobic, hysterical liars are they?

The misconceptions about what is happening in Women's Refuges (which are already accepting transwomen) have no basis in fact. At the enquiry into the self ID legislation

Over the course of an hour and a half, MPs grilled the three women, trying to work out why there was so much fear about trans women in refuges.

PinkNews watched the whole thing, and eventually, it becomes clear that the “level of concern” Karen and others like her feel about trans women in women’s refuges is not driven by evidence – no examples could be given by any of the three witnesses of trans women, or cis men pretending to be trans women, accessing women’s refuges and abusing women.
The fear stems from a refusal to recognise that transgender women are women.

The witnesses stated categorically that they had safety measures and risk assessments in place to prevent anyone, who presented a risk to residents whatever their gender or sexual orientation, accessing their services.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/08/trans-women-refuges-domestic-abuse-myth-debunked-womens-aid-diana-james/

NiceasMice, here’s hoping the law can be upheld for women as well as transwomen

Chewbacca interesting post about the Women's Aid Refuges. These voices need to be heard.

Being female is a protected characteristic under the equality act of 2010

The Equality Act 2010 clearly states ...
SEX is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010.
Change one word and the effectiveness of applying the law is weakened.
Transgender people are protected by a separate characterisic so the law can be upheld for them also, as it should be.

Petunia, exactly as you say in your post at 07.19 today 08.12.20.

Chewbacca, thanks for the response to Women's Aid.

Petunia, spot on.

Of course there are male and female, the worlds gone mad. Just be tolerant of people differences.

The issue with self ID is not limited to bathrooms unfortunately.

I wrote a response to the original consultation on the issue of self ID and a further one a week or so ago when the decision not to go ahead was appealed. My second response caused me to consider that self ID is probably not the real point . The real point for me is that changes have been made to the way we live and conduct ourselves with the main recipients placed in a position where an objection is met with accusations and sometimes violence.

People who are transgender have been around for centuries and most of us don't bat an eyelid. But the focus on transgender rights has exposed several flaws.

Being female is a protected characteristic under the equality act of 2010. So as a society, we need to speak about who exactly is female and what that means. If stating that a female is a biological woman is seen as violence to transwomen, I think we have lost our way.

Chewbacca, I agree 100% with the statement that you posted. Unless the rules have changed Women's Refuges will not take a woman in if she has a son who is a teenager. The reason being, of course, that the women are mostly fleeing from a male who has assaulted them. They don't want the victim to suffer more by having to SHARE with men. But if a man puts on a dress and claims to be trans and a victim of domestic violence he could be admitted? And what of women who for cultural or religious reasons don't want to mix with men in some circumstances? Now that is a conundrum, isn't it?

Do you discriminate against the transwoman or on the woman who holds certain religious beliefs?
I find that with ill thought out legislation the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

Something is being sold here- An idea- Another side- It's up to you to buy it or deny it-

I think this poem fits this thread:

Good Bones

Life is short, though I keep this from my children.
Life is short, and I’ve shortened mine
in a thousand delicious, ill-advised ways,
a thousand deliciously ill-advised ways
I’ll keep from my children. The world is at least
fifty percent terrible, and that’s a conservative
estimate, though I keep this from my children.
For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird.
For every loved child, a child broken, bagged,
sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world
is at least half terrible, and for every kind
stranger, there is one who would break you,
though I keep this from my children. I am trying
to sell them the world. Any decent realtor,
walking you through a real shithole, chirps on
about good bones: This place could be beautiful,
right? You could make this place beautiful.

Maggie Smith

Apologies for the length of this but I've copied and pasted it in its entirety:

A Survivors Letter

"Dear Women’s Organisations, We are women survivors of systemic male violence in all its forms. As you probably know, 98% of sexual offences and 80% of violent crimes are committed by males against females and not the reverse. We have suffered every kind of horror inflicted on our bodies and minds. For many of us we are battling every day with trauma symptoms. Speaking out is not easy for us and we respectfully ask that you listen. As you may be aware the government is considering changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

We are extremely concerned about these proposed changes which will allow any biological male to easily self-identify as a woman and will take away our fundamental right to natal female spaces. This would make it very difficult for you to refuse any male in women’s spaces even under the Equality Act exemptions. We are surprised that we, as survivors, are having to explain to you, women’s organisations, why we don’t want biological males in our spaces but we have no choice but to speak out in the face of a barrage of online verbal abuse, death threats and threats of male sexual torture. For many of us, we are only alive today because of women only spaces. We know how vital it is for our healing and we fear for other women. Some of us fear for our lives without the support of women’s services, which many of us will be unable to attend with a biological male presence there. We disagree with these proposed changes. We would like to keep our spaces for females only and we ask that you oppose the changes to the Gender Recognition Act in the up and coming consultation for the following reasons.

We object to being made invisible as survivors of male violence. We object to our needs being disregarded and made less of a priority than those of trans people We are being put second in the following ways: a. We are being forced to submit to the transgender activist world view that a woman is a feeling in someone’s head, rather than a biological reality Please think about whether you honestly believe this and that women don’t experience biology based oppressions? If you don’t believe that woman is merely a feeling why are you validating this? Would you make a generic survivors group be from a Pagan or Muslim perspective to be inclusive of Pagan or Muslim women? If not why then make women and your whole service submit to a trans-activist world view? Pagan and Muslim women are not demanding this. No other oppressed group has demanded another group submit to their view of the world. Why is such a small group being prioritised to the point where women must sacrifice their sex based human rights? b. We do not feel safe and mounting evidence shows we are not safe Women’s Aid motto is “Until Women and Children are Safe”. We do not feel safe having males in our spaces. If my rapist follows me you will ring 999. You will get the police to do safety checks on my welfare. If he comes near the refuge you will force me to leave there for my own safety and the safety of other women, yet if he puts on a dress and calls himself a woman you could welcome him into the refuge and call women bigots for objecting. Under the new law you may be forced to do this or at least you would find it very difficult to prevent. For some of us, our perpetrators were trans, at the time of abuse or transitioned later after abusing us."