The loss of freedom of speech, of sidelining women and biology

Oh yes FarNorth; I can imagine it only too well. TRA have zero interest in "fair rights for all". They only want women - all women - silenced, subjugated and erased and are using violence and intimidation to achieve it.

Can you imagine the outcry if women & men were to demonstrate against trans people in that way?

Another outrageous display of trans activists bullying tactics to silence women in Bristol today. One was seen writing on the ground "after Colston TERFS are next" referring to the statue of Colston thrown into the river.

Another was carrying a placard "TERFS suck my d***". They arrive dressed in black and all wearing balaclavas, these trans activists who use mob rule, threats of violence and intimidation to silence women, who are too cowardly to show their faces .

Trans competitors will now have to wait longer to compete after transitioning between genders under the UCI's ruling, which doubled the period from 12 months to two years. The body also announced it is halving the maximum testosterone level permitted for trans women to compete in the female category.

Can I just check.
1. What proof is there that two years reduces male advantage any better than 12 months?
Does that mean that it’s OK for TW wanting to compete in female races to take performance enhancing drugs (that allow them to compete even though they are still biological males) but not for any other competitor to take drugs?
Maybe they could also perhaps take muscle weakening drugs and other drugs that reduce their male advantage?
Just been to a swimming gala where T’s were allowed to compete!???

I came across this podcast of 3 young women talking about why some women are transphobic, and what needs to change.
(30 mins)

I hoped to educate myself but I found their logic quite illogical.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sleepover-club-we-need-to-talk-about-terfs/id1451311975?i=1000478985470

Agreed, DL.

I fully agree that anyone "trans" should have their own spaces, no problems with that at all. Not bothering anyone else doing that.

But, when it comes to advice/treatment, with things involving conditions that can only apply to biological women, it should be made clear that only biological women are affected, to avoid confusion - especially for people whose first language isn't English.

And, money should not be filtered off from historical "biological female" conditions to apply it elsewhere.

I find it astonishing that so many are having to give headspace, funding and time, to catering for scenarios that cannot exist, and to pander to a tiny (if loud), minority.?

Some excellent posts on this page.

AussieNanna, I agree that there should be a separate category for transpeople. To me, this would make far more sense than the idea that 'transwomen are women'. It would mean that transpeople can live however they like, but not 'become' the other sex, as this is impossible.

We should continue to have areas segregated by sex where this is necessary for the safety of women (eg prisons, refuges and hospitals) and transpeople should access the ones appropriate to their sex, unless there is separate 'trans' provision. I also think it is important to ensure that such trans provision should not be created at the expense of provision for women (ie it should be funded separately and not be the more modern/better equipped alternative to women's provision that would advantage those who can access it by self identifying as female).

Where health is concerned, I also feel that steps should be taken to ensure that money is not syphoned off things like HRT and other gynaecological issues (eg endometriosis) to pay for transitioning hormones and surgery. I understand that this is currently happening.

This is not said because of 'transphobia', but because of feminism. Yet again, male 'women' are prioritised over actual women, and it is a disgrace.

Here's a short article about the effects of the 'conversion therapy ban' in Canada, and what 'conversion therapy' actually is.

The Scottish Parliament is processing a Bill which is likely to have similar effects while the UK government has said it will not include 'trans conversion therapy' in its legislation.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/types-of-therapy/

My phone is misbehaving!

Sorry my phone is mi I think the use of the words sex and gender interchangeably have muddied the waters.

Ye

What you've described is gender Galaxy, society's expected norms for men and women.

I suppose I should be clear about my views on gender. I see gender as rules imposed by society on how men and women should 'be', it is frequently deeply oppressive for both women and men.
So men shouldnt cry, women dont want to be scientists, etc etc, that's what gender means to me.

Not just men becoming women but women becoming men but men can't become women, and women can't become men which is why there are so many problems when it comes to services which are segregated by sex, not gender.

Services such as prisons refuges etc are not segregated by gender they are segregated by sex.

FarNorth

No-one has ever argued against separate provision for the 2 sexes, in the areas we talk about here. No-one is arguing about it now because everyone understands the reasons for it .

Yet as soon as a man says he's a woman, a lot of people are completely blinded by that statement and start saying he should be included as a woman.

It really doesn't make sense AussieNana to talk about a special category of men who can be accepted as women.

In my view, trans people should own their reality of being trans instead of claiming to be the opposite sex.

I disagree - I think it does make sense to talk about a special category of people - those who have transitioned to the other gender.

Not just men becoming women but women becoming men

They can own that, if you like (Ive not heard of anyone disowning it )- but it still leaves the practical issues of real life.

In my view trans people should own their reality of being trans instead of claiming to be the opposite sex I completely agree FarNorth.

That's the irony of the "gender fluid" argument though isn't it DiamondLily; the NHS, personal hygiene manufacturers etc are falling over themselves to remove the word WOMAN from their lexicon whilst keeping the word MAN. People who chest feed, menstruators, cervix havers - not "WOMEN". But we still have shaving products for "the closest shave a MAN can get". Oh no, there's no misogyny here.

Sajid Javid appears to be trying to take some action with the NHS, and the language they are now using in leaflets etc.

"Sajid Javid is prepared to wage war against gender-free language after he demanded the NHS stop dropping the word 'women' from its online health advice.

The minister, 52, has repeatedly said he does not agree with the health service removing the word from its ovarian cancer guidance webpage.

'Women' does not appear in the overview of the disease on the NHS.uk website, instead being replaced with the ambiguous and gender-neutral term 'anyone'.

Dr Karleen Gribble, a child health expert and professor at Western Sydney University, warned gender-free terms are 'less accessible' and could have deadly consequences.

'Many people do not even know if they have a cervix or prostate but they do understand men or women', she explained.

'The potential harm is people don’t respond to public health messaging. It might result in a fatal delay in seeking health care.'

It comes as it was revealed the word 'women' does not appear in the overview of the disease on the NHS.uk website.

Instead it states: 'Ovarian cancer affects the two small organs (ovaries) that store the eggs needed to make babies.

'Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer, but it mostly affects those over 50.'"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10925093/Sajid-Javid-orders-NHS-bosses-stop-dropping-women-online-advice-pages.html

If you start from the premise that women dont exist as a seperate category from men then you start from a position of misogyny. All of this follows from that belief. If you start from the premise that women are only allowed boundaries and consent when those boundaries are set by men then yep you start from a position of misogyny. If you think there is a way to live like women or dress like a woman then you start from a position of misogyny. If you tell people that you must live as a woman in order to access treatment you start from a position of misogyny. I could go on

At the end of the day all this is being achieved through bullying. The organisations and businesses that bend to the will of trans activists do so out of fear. Fear of being sued, fear of mobs turning up outside disrupting retail outlets or damaging goods surreptitiously or intimidating customers who then go elsewhere. It’s old fashioned fear and intimidation tactics and if we, as women, decide to take them on by counter demonstrations we would be in danger of physical assault and very nasty verbal intimidation.

Their behaviour perfectly illustrates their toxic masculinity and before anyone jumps in accusing me of being transphobic- I’m not. I have no issue with trans and support their right to transition. I do have a big problem with the activists and boundary pushers who are misogynists at heart and a danger to women as our rights and those of our female descendants are being eroded and, as pointed out upthread, it’s getting more dystopian year on year.

How would that help women who dont want men in their spaces, those who have been raped, those who just want privacy from men, these spaces are segregated by sex not gender.

DiamondLily

I'm not clear any sort of "proof" of being genuine would work, but it would be a way to weed out those, who have no wish to actually be a "woman", accessing spaces, treatments etc under this current free for all.

Obviously, a biological man can never actually become a woman, whatever they might wish for. Or vice versa. It's just not possible.?

Yes we know the person can't genetically become the other gender.

I think it was you who first floated the idea diamond lily and I think it has merit.

Nobody would be checking but one would have proof if required

No-one has ever argued against separate provision for the 2 sexes, in the areas we talk about here. No-one is arguing about it now because everyone understands the reasons for it .

Yet as soon as a man says he's a woman, a lot of people are completely blinded by that statement and start saying he should be included as a woman.

It really doesn't make sense AussieNana to talk about a special category of men who can be accepted as women.

In my view, trans people should own their reality of being trans instead of claiming to be the opposite sex.