LGBT+ Discussion

[whelk]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Why are adult males so excited by this? We've got clarity, which was needed in law, but it not sure why people are rejoicing about something which makes no difference whatsoever to them. 

Define a male please?

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

Is transprickly a thing? Good word though. 

I think that's just a confused hedgehog.

[whelk]

It’s was 16 years ago to the day that I came running out of the room shouting ‘It’s a boy, it’s a boy!’ 
 

never going back to Thailand again

 

 

[whelk]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

Why are adult males so excited by this? We've got clarity, which was needed in law, but it not sure why people are rejoicing about something which makes no difference whatsoever to them. 

And to give a sensible answer I think it is a relief to people who thought law and society was going in a stupid direction in recognising whatever people wanting to declare. Most aren’t bigoted and have no worries about people doing whatever they want but don’t expect people to fundamentally deny basic science.

 

[hypochondriac]

44 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Transphobic abuse and attacks.

What is that specifically? 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Why are adult males so excited by this? We've got clarity, which was needed in law, but it not sure why people are rejoicing about something which makes no difference whatsoever to them. 

Because they care about women's rights and about the women in their lives who will be positively impacted by this? Because women will no longer be intimately searched by men? If I heard about poverty being reduced in Kenya and I reduced at the news would you find it difficult to understand why I would be doing so despite it making no difference to me whatsoever? 

Edited Wednesday at 18:38 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

And to give a sensible answer I think it is a relief to people who thought law and society was going in a stupid direction in recognising whatever people wanting to declare. Most aren’t bigoted and have no worries about people doing whatever they want but don’t expect people to fundamentally deny basic science.

 

An honest and sensible answer. Thanks. 

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Because they care about women's rights and about the women in their lives who will be positively impacted by this? Because women will no longer be intimately searched by men? If I heard about poverty being reduced in Kenya and I reduced at the news would you find it difficult to understand why I would be doing so despite it making no difference to me whatsoever? 

Who are you trying to kid. You'd have slaughtered SoG for answering like that. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

An honest and sensible answer. Thanks. 

Who are you trying to kid. You'd have slaughtered SoG for answering like that. 

Eh? The point that you can only ever be happy about something if it affects you directly is patently absurd. Leaving aside that as a father and a husband it clearly does affect me. Have you ever given to charity? I ran a marathon once for a charity that had no impact on me whatsoever. Outrageous. 

To use an example a little closer to home, if the IDF announced tomorrow that they were withdrawing from Gaza and stopping any further military action presumably you'd be happy about that. Using your logic you shouldn't be because it doesn't affect you. 

Edited Wednesday at 20:16 by hypochondriac

[Turkish]

4 hours ago, aintforever said:

Well I used to work with a trans woman if that counts, helped me understand the issues they face.

 

 

Did someone make a transphobic comment and you went into hiding more worried about your self this time too?

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

And to give a sensible answer I think it is a relief to people who thought law and society was going in a stupid direction in recognising whatever people wanting to declare. Most aren’t bigoted and have no worries about people doing whatever they want but don’t expect people to fundamentally deny basic science.

Furthermore it’s stuff like this which fuels the appeal of the far right. People say why Trump, why Tate, why Robinson? Etc. the more mainstream and widespread things like gender identities, the more disillusioned people will be driven into their arms as the supposedly sane option. The right love stuff like this, it makes liberals look like unhinged weirdos. 

[Sir Ralph]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

Saying common sense prevails isn’t the same as having a phobia. Some of the most ‘liberal’ seem to delight in putting people in ‘phobic’ boxes. One could almost say bigoted 

Either way it shows how messed up society is that this even being discussed. The Supreme Court have just confirmed what humans have believed for the last x thousand years. It ain’t rocket science but for some reason some allegedly rationale people thought otherwise. A moment of rationality in a mental world. It appears the tide of madness is slowly turning 

Edited Wednesday at 20:43 by Sir Ralph

[bpsaint]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Why are adult males so excited by this? We've got clarity, which was needed in law, but it not sure why people are rejoicing about something which makes no difference whatsoever to them. 

Wouldn’t say I’m excited by it, but if it’s one step closer to for example my wife and my daughter not having to share a changing room, or a public loo, with some “woman” and her cock then I’d say it makes a difference to me.

[Sir Ralph]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Why are adult males so excited by this? We've got clarity, which was needed in law, but it not sure why people are rejoicing about something which makes no difference whatsoever to them. 

If you can’t see the implication of the Supreme Court judgement going the other way then think harder (only a little bit)!

Edited Wednesday at 21:20 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Furthermore it’s stuff like this which fuels the appeal of the far right. People say why Trump, why Tate, why Robinson? Etc. the more mainstream and widespread things like gender identities, the more disillusioned people will be driven into their arms as the supposedly sane option. The right love stuff like this, it makes liberals look like unhinged weirdos. 

It’s not an accident Labour’s fortunes improved since they distanced themselves from it, and it didn’t help the Democrats last year.

It’s an issue I’m very agnostic about and I’ve got nothing against trans people whatsoever. But hopefully there’s a decline now in people saying my pronoun is this/that. There’s a hundred and more issues of critical importance than this. One less poxy culture war issue for Badenoch and various tabloid hacks at the Telegraph and the Mail to bore on about. 

Edited Wednesday at 21:25 by Gloucester Saint

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s not an accident Labour’s fortunes improved since they distanced themselves from it, and it didn’t help the Democrats last year.

It’s an issue I’m very agnostic about and I’ve got nothing against trans people whatsoever. But hopefully there’s a decline now in people saying my pronoun is this/that. There’s a hundred and more issues of critical importance than this. One less poxy culture war issue. 

It’s an issue I’m very agnostic about and I’ve got nothing against trans people whatsoever.
 

Phew - the first part of the sentence I thought you had turned into a raging transphobe

 

Edited Wednesday at 21:29 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s an issue I’m very agnostic about and I’ve got nothing against trans people whatsoever.
 

Phew - the first part of the sentence I thought you had turned into a raging transphobe - no need to be so apologetic 

I just struggle to shake off my apathy about this particular issue tbh! But it got out of hand and the behaviour towards Kathleen Stock at Sussex University by trans activists was very unacceptable and dangerous. That couldve happened to a lot of people in their workplace. I’m sure that’s had a factor in today’s judgement. 

Edited Wednesday at 21:33 by Gloucester Saint

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I just struggle to shake off my apathy about this particular issue tbh! But it got out of hand and the behaviour towards Kathleen Stock at Sussex University by trans activists was very unacceptable and dangerous. I’m sure that’s had a factor in today’s judgement. 

I think you might underestimate the importance of the outcome- this means that institutions can now legitimately stop men competing in women’s sport, stop men going into women’s toilets and changing rooms and stop men going into women’s prisons with reduced risk of BS human rights argument and challenge. I think this should be celebrated because it means that the distinction between men and women is maintained which is fundamental for society. 
 

if the decision goes the other way some of the legal entitlement and madness that would come from it, I already played out with a couple of friends much clever than me and it’s scary. 

Edited Wednesday at 21:39 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I think you might underestimate the importance of the outcome- this means that institutions can now legitimately stop men competing in women’s sport, stop men going into women’s toilets and changing rooms and stop men going into women’s prisons with reduced risk of BS human rights argument and challenge. I think this should be celebrated because it means that the distinction between men and women is maintained which is fundamental for society. 
 

if the decision goes the other way some of the legal entitlement and madness that would come from it, I already played out with a couple of friends much clever than me and it’s scary

I remember the Scottish prisons case which IIRC had a trans rapist - there we go, that was it https://news.sky.com/story/isla-bryson-transgender-double-rapist-complains-of-transphobic-abuse-in-prison-12913882

In some sports it’s been an issue and I can see how there could be a significant physical advantage.

Either way, it should bring some clarity now which has got to be an improvement. I’m fine with the judgement.

[aintforever]

40 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s not an accident Labour’s fortunes improved since they distanced themselves from it, and it didn’t help the Democrats last year.

It’s an issue I’m very agnostic about and I’ve got nothing against trans people whatsoever. But hopefully there’s a decline now in people saying my pronoun is this/that. There’s a hundred and more issues of critical importance than this. One less poxy culture war issue for Badenoch and various tabloid hacks at the Telegraph and the Mail to bore on about. 

Agree with all this, I just get wound up by all the hype surrounding it as much of it is fuelled by ignorance and transphobia. The Scottish prison case is a classic example. The person involved was housed in a segregated area so was no threat to any female prisoners - didn’t stop a load of outrage from the sort of people who usually don’t give a shite about the welfare of criminals in prison.

Edited Wednesday at 22:03 by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, bpsaint said:

Wouldn’t say I’m excited by it, but if it’s one step closer to for example my wife and my daughter not having to share a changing room, or a public loo, with some “woman” and her cock then I’d say it makes a difference to me.

Amen. 

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Agree with all this, I just get wound up by all the hype surrounding it as much of it is fuelled by ignorance and transphobia. The Scottish prison case is a classic example. The person involved was housed in a segregated area so was no threat to any female prisoners - didn’t stop a load of outrage from the sort of people who usually don’t give a shite about the welfare of criminals in prison.

Well seeing as you falsely smeared me with this label earlier, attributing things to me that I'd never said and opinions I'd never held, I'm not sure you can say with confidence that the people who had a problem with biological men in women's prisons had ever previously cared about prisoner welfare. 

[sadoldgit]

45 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I think you might underestimate the importance of the outcome- this means that institutions can now legitimately stop men competing in women’s sport, stop men going into women’s toilets and changing rooms and stop men going into women’s prisons with reduced risk of BS human rights argument and challenge. I think this should be celebrated because it means that the distinction between men and women is maintained which is fundamental for society. 
 

if the decision goes the other way some of the legal entitlement and madness that would come from it, I already played out with a couple of friends much clever than me and it’s scary. 

Will it mean that men who have transitioned to women will now have to use men’s toilets and vice versa? I know a trans man with a beard and male pattern baldness. If he was to walk into a women’s toilet they would freak out, yet according to the law he is a (biological) woman.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I think you might underestimate the importance of the outcome- this means that institutions can now legitimately stop men competing in women’s sport

I’m pretty sure sport’s governing bodies can already make up their own rules on this.

[hypochondriac]

48 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Will it mean that men who have transitioned to women will now have to use men’s toilets and vice versa? I know a trans man with a beard and male pattern baldness. If he was to walk into a women’s toilet they would freak out, yet according to the law he is a (biological) woman.

According to reality they are biological women. Taking hormones and looking like a man in order to relieve their gender dysphoria doesn't make them a biological male. This is basic stuff that is also accurate in the law.

In reality though anyone who looks like a man isn't really going to have an issue continuing to use the men's loos are they. This is mainly about preventing women from being forced to share single sex spaces with biological men. 

Edited Wednesday at 23:16 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I’m pretty sure sport’s governing bodies can already make up their own rules on this.

The ambiguity prior to the clarification today has meant that some governing bodies have been reluctant to enforce a ban. This clear ruling today will mean that they will now have confidence to act and may be compelled to do so if they continue to fail to comply with the law as written. 

[egg]

8 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you can’t see the implication of the Supreme Court judgement going the other way then think harder (only a little bit)!

If you read my comment, you'd have seen that I recognise the  need for the clarification. The decision makes huge differences for women, we all know that. 

What I don't get is the level of excitement by some on the issue, and I can't be doing with care/concern being used as a cover for bigotry.

We've now got clarity of the obvious. Issue resolved for me. 

[egg]

7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Will it mean that men who have transitioned to women will now have to use men’s toilets and vice versa? I know a trans man with a beard and male pattern baldness. If he was to walk into a women’s toilet they would freak out, yet according to the law he is a (biological) woman.

She'll have to use the ladies - there is no point having this change if 5 minutes later people are encouraging ignoring it and having inconsistency. 

[egg]

9 hours ago, bpsaint said:

Wouldn’t say I’m excited by it, but if it’s one step closer to for example my wife and my daughter not having to share a changing room, or a public loo, with some “woman” and her cock then I’d say it makes a difference to me.

The same applies to my wife, daughter and granddaughter. The clarity makes a difference to them. It'd be wrong to say that it impacts me though. 

 

 

 

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

If you read my comment, you'd have seen that I recognise the  need for the clarification. The decision makes huge differences for women, we all know that. 

What I don't get is the level of excitement by some on the issue, and I can't be doing with care/concern being used as a cover for bigotry.

We've now got clarity of the obvious. Issue resolved for me. 

Since you have zero idea how the vast majority of posters on here spend their time outside of the forum, what issues they have previously been interested in nor how the personal lives of females in their lives would be affected by this, you would have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It would be akin to you expressing happiness if conditions improved for Palestinians and then being accused of having care/concern to cover for bigotry because you hate Jews. 

Edited Thursday at 06:55 by hypochondriac

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Since you have zero idea how the vast majority of posters on here spend their time outside of the forum, what issues they have previously been interested in nor how the personal lives of females in their lives would be affected by this, you would have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It would be akin to you expressing happiness if conditions improved for Palestinians and then being accused having care/concern to cover for bigotry because you hate Jews. 

How women and girls are impacted by this is very different to how we as men are impacted by it. You've had a bee in your bonnet about this issue that goes way beyond a sense of security for them. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

How women and girls are impacted by this is very different to how we as men are impacted by it. You've had a bee in your bonnet about this issue that goes way beyond a sense of security for them. 

Obviously men are impacted differently that's never been in dispute. If you were aware of this issue, you'd know that there are plenty of men involved in the movement because they deeply care about women's rights. Are all those men who have campaigned alongside women on this similarly bigoted for caring more about it than you do? 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Obviously men are impacted differently that's never been in dispute. If you were aware of this issue, you'd know that there are plenty of men involved in the movement because they deeply care about women's rights. Are all those men who have campaigned alongside women on this similarly bigoted for caring more about it than you do? 

Involved is not impacted directly. You've been disproportionately frothing at the mouth over this since day 1. I'm not buying this uber nice guy front. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Involved is not impacted directly. You've been disproportionately frothing at the mouth over this since day 1. I'm not buying this uber nice guy front. 

Why are you pointing out things that no one ever argued with? I said it has an impact on me because I have females in my family whose lives will be positively impacted by this so it will have an impact on the society that I live in. All the more reason for me to be happy about this outcome if as you correctly point out I have cared about this issue for a long time. With respect I don't really give a fuck what you think you might infer from my posts. I'm confident and know exactly what I think without you trying to stick some hidden meaning into what I write. As a biological man if you want to put on a dress and call yourself a women's name then all power to you. You certainly shouldn't be treated badly or abused for that but the court has now ruled that you are still biologically male and you can't change sex with all the implications that has. That's a significant victory for women and one that in my opinion is worth celebrating since as you say its a deep unfairness that has caused real distress in many women for a long time.

I'm not pretending I know what your motives are because you don't really care about it. I could say something like "I don't buy your act you're just saying you don't care because you are bigoted against women." You actually have no clue if my happiness at this ruling comes from a place of genuine concern for the rights of women including the ones in my life but I'm telling you that is the case. 

Edited Thursday at 07:23 by hypochondriac

[tdmickey3]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Since you have zero idea how the vast majority of posters on here spend their time outside of the forum, what issues they have previously been interested in nor how the personal lives of females in their lives would be affected by this, you would have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It would be akin to you expressing happiness if conditions improved for Palestinians and then being accused of having care/concern to cover for bigotry because you hate Jews. 

Ahh but we do, you monitor shops in Shirley high street

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Ahh but we do, you monitor shops in Shirley high street

Was empty again last night too. Fully stocked and zero customers. Well dodgy. 

[tdmickey3]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Was empty again last night too. Fully stocked and zero customers. Well dodgy. 

Excellent, keep up the good work 😉

[benjii]

 

20 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not complex at all as the high court has now made clear. Sex is binary and you can't change it, I'm glad you agree.

Does the judgment say "sex is binary"? I doubt it.

Edited Thursday at 09:40 by benjii

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 minutes ago, benjii said:

 

Does the judgment say "sex is binary"? I doubt it.

"171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes it clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man."

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

"171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes it clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man."

Yes, they are saying that the logical construction of the Equality Act only allows for a binary interpretation but they aren't issuing a judgment on whether sex actually can be somewhere on a spectrum as a matter of biological fact. 

I'm not against the ruling but there will still be people who push the limits of the biological definition (butch birds, etc.)

[hypochondriac]

42 minutes ago, benjii said:

Yes, they are saying that the logical construction of the Equality Act only allows for a binary interpretation but they aren't issuing a judgment on whether sex actually can be somewhere on a spectrum as a matter of biological fact. 

I'm not against the ruling but there will still be people who push the limits of the biological definition (butch birds, etc.)

Sorry? A butch woman is still biologically a woman. A bird doesn't morph into a different sex if they don a pair of cargo pants and shave their head. 

[badgerx16]

44 minutes ago, benjii said:

Yes, they are saying that the logical construction of the Equality Act only allows for a binary interpretation but they aren't issuing a judgment on whether sex actually can be somewhere on a spectrum as a matter of biological fact. 

I'm not against the ruling but there will still be people who push the limits of the biological definition (butch birds, etc.)

Hermaphrodites, ( proper ones, not surgically engineered ones ).

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Hermaphrodites, ( proper ones, not surgically engineered ones ).

You're still either biologically male or female. Either congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) or androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). 

[Lighthouse]

12 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Will it mean that men who have transitioned to women will now have to use men’s toilets and vice versa? I know a trans man with a beard and male pattern baldness. If he was to walk into a women’s toilet they would freak out, yet according to the law he is a (biological) woman.

You’re asking other people to explain and give solutions to a problem which is entirely of their own making. If you choose to take hormone replacements and any other treatments which alter your appearance to the point that you’re no longer recognisable as a woman, you have to live with the consequences of that, not ask society to make special rules which don’t really work, in order to accommodate you.

It’s like when people get tattoos covering their neck and face, then say they struggle to find employment and are discriminated against. Well… yeah.

[benjii]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Sorry? A butch woman is still biologically a woman. A bird doesn't morph into a different sex if they don a pair of cargo pants and shave their head. 

Castor Semenya has testes.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

Castor Semenya has testes.

Yes because Semenya is a biological male. 

[benjii]

Caster Semenya has a vagina.

[tdmickey3]

Caster sugar is sweet

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

my happiness at this ruling comes from a place of genuine concern for the rights of women including the ones in my life but I'm telling you that is the case. 

Don't forget your deep concern for the welfare of those murderers, thieves and child abusers locked up in that Scottish prison. Must be horrible for those poor souls to be in the same building as a tranny.  

Edited Thursday at 11:34 by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Don't forget your deep concern for the welfare of those murderers, thieves and child abusers locked up in that Scottish prison. Must be horrible for those poor souls to be in the same building as a tranny.  

Those in prison are there to receive their punishment. I wouldn't have much sympathy if someone was victimised by someone claiming to be trans in a woman's prison but that isn't the same thing as saying I would want it to happen. Besides, most people in prison aren't there for the most serious offences. 

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Those in prison are there to receive their punishment. I wouldn't have much sympathy if someone was victimised by someone claiming to be trans in a woman's prison but that isn't the same thing as saying I would want it to happen. Besides, most people in prison aren't there for the most serious offences. 

Na, you're not convincing me.