MoD language guide

StormsInAfrica

War Hero
your utter ignorance is marked


As an interested observer, i've learned much from Gravelbelly and Sarastro's debate.

It's enabled me to much reflect on my position on the issue and adjust it to account for some nuance that I was hitherto ignorant of.

In short, they have suceeded in influencing anothers position to the betterment of a cause.

Conversely, you are the embodiment of why positions become entrenched and discourse deteriorates.

You do a tremendous disservice to those you claim to champion and represent.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
You do a tremendous disservice to those you claim to champion and represent.
That profile was asked, by me, who they believed they represented but they weren't able to answer that.

I'm not entirely convinced that the profile is resourced to answer those questions.
 
yet here you are actively supporting people who call for genocide
At this point, I'm tempted suggest that you're now reinforcing the prejudices of those who you have to persuade - and allowing people to dismiss you as "unreasonable" (and thus to ignore any reasonable comments you make)

Yes, there are swivel-eyed evangelists, well-funded and (by most measures) evil, who are playing a vicious game of "divide and conquer" - first, we split off the Transgenders, and then we can go after the rest of LGB. The current "gender critical" debate is full of people saying one thing and meaning another.

But.

My baseline position is simple - that trans women are women; trans men are men. There are particular times and places where that becomes a battleground - for the activists on the morally upstanding exclusionary side who seek something, anything, to wield as "objective facts" to justify their prejudices reasoned position; for the activists on the woke idiots inclusionary side who see any compromise with bigots exclusionists as failure of principle. Terms struck out in a hopefully even-handed way to avoid my bias leaking through.

I'm aware that there has to be some careful, nuanced, and sensitive debate around edge cases (as with anything) - the depressing thing is when edge cases are presented as the whole debate. They aren't.

For instance; trans athletes. This was a convenient spark for trans-exclusionary types; but in reality, for all the noise and confusion and theoretical examples, no trans athlete has ever won a medal at the Olympics or World Championships. There are IOC guidelines around participation that include reassignment surgery and hormone level measurement; they appear to be working AFAICT.

Now think of the cruel humour directed at any woman who dares to do well in a strength/power-based sport. Women javelin/hammer throwers, heavyweight judoka, bodybuilders. Infantrywomen. Sorry, but that's simple misogyny IMHO; ask yourself how much crossover there is between the two.

Take Caster Semenya, born a woman, lives as a woman, but intersex. She probably grew up just thinking of herself as just a stronger girl than her peers. Should she be allowed to compete? If so, how can it be made fair? And what does "fairness" mean when most Olympic athletes are genetic anomalies anyway? Don't imagine that you will ever get into the England rugby team if you're a shortarse, or win the Tour de France if you're 6'7". I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there are plenty of people who have no idea that they're intersex - and that pointing fingers at them as "strange", "different", "other" is a cruel and harmful thing to do.

Ask yourself whether a trans woman competing at the Olympics has much to do with the lived reality of most trans women. Pretty much zero. What it does do is say "you're accepted". There's no real harm in allowing it; nobody dies, no-one gets hurt, so why get so excited?

Now, think of the impact of all the anger poured out against a trans woman trying to compete at the Olympics. All it achieved was to say: "we don't accept your existence". It exposed anger, prejudice, bigotry. Is that a world that anyone wants to live in?
 
Last edited:

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
For instance; trans athletes. This was a convenient spark for trans-exclusionary types; but in reality, for all the noise and confusion and theoretical examples, no trans athlete has ever won a medal at the Olympics or World Championships. There are IOC guidelines around participation that include reassignment surgery and hormone level measurement; they appear to be working AFAICT.
Surely you must realise that the debate around transwomen in sports has never centred around how many medals have or haven't been won at the Olympics.

There are serious issues around safety which have been exposed in rugby & martial arts where serious injuries have been caused by the serious physical mismatch which exists. This is one of the issues where reality is more important than feelings when it comes to the safety of women.

The subject of erasing women from sports us a different but also important issue. The weightlifting case from the Japanese athletics demonstrated the absurdity of a mediocre athlete being good enough to represent New Zeeland but at the expense of a female athlete who would've benefited far more from the opportunity.
 

Hairy-boab

Old-Salt
Surely you must realise that the debate around transwomen in sports has never centred around how many medals have or haven't been won at the Olympics.

There are serious issues around safety which have been exposed in rugby & martial arts where serious injuries have been caused by the serious physical mismatch which exists. This is one of the issues where reality is more important than feelings when it comes to the safety of women.

The subject of erasing women from sports us a different but also important issue. The weightlifting case from the Japanese athletics demonstrated the absurdity of a mediocre athlete being good enough to represent New Zeeland but at the expense of a female athlete who would've benefited far more from the opportunity.
My old boy decided he was better off as a woman last year. I keep trying to persuade him to do some e.g age group cycling and win some shit, but he is having none of it!

Many trans people are well aware of how absurd life is, and don’t take things too seriously (nobody should IMV). As mentioned above, we let the voices of a crazy minority drive the debate.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
At this point, I'm tempted suggest that you're now reinforcing the prejudices of those who you have to persuade - and allowing people to dismiss you as "unreasonable" (and thus to ignore any reasonable comments you make)

Yes, there are swivel-eyed evangelists, well-funded and (by most measures) evil, who are playing a vicious game of "divide and conquer" - first, we split off the Transgenders, and then we can go after the rest of LGB. The current "gender critical" debate is full of people saying one thing and meaning another.

But.

My baseline position is simple - that trans women are women; trans men are men. There are particular times and places where that becomes a battleground - for the activists on the morally upstanding exclusionary side who seek something, anything, to wield as "objective facts" to justify their prejudices reasoned position; for the activists on the woke idiots inclusionary side who see any compromise with bigots exclusionists as failure of principle. Terms struck out in a hopefully even-handed way to avoid my bias leaking through.

I'm aware that there has to be some careful, nuanced, and sensitive debate around edge cases (as with anything) - the depressing thing is when edge cases are presented as the whole debate. They aren't.

For instance; trans athletes. This was a convenient spark for trans-exclusionary types; but in reality, for all the noise and confusion and theoretical examples, no trans athlete has ever won a medal at the Olympics or World Championships. There are IOC guidelines around participation that include reassignment surgery and hormone level measurement; they appear to be working AFAICT.

Now think of the cruel humour directed at any woman who dares to do well in a strength/power-based sport. Women javelin/hammer throwers, heavyweight judoka, bodybuilders. Infantrywomen. Sorry, but that's simple misogyny IMHO; ask yourself how much crossover there is between the two.

Take Caster Semenya, born a woman, lives as a woman, but intersex. She probably grew up just thinking of herself as just a stronger girl than her peers. Should she be allowed to compete? If so, how can it be made fair? And what does "fairness" mean when most Olympic athletes are genetic anomalies anyway? Don't imagine that you will ever get into the England rugby team if you're a shortarse, or win the Tour de France if you're 6'7". I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there are plenty of people who have no idea that they're intersex - and that pointing fingers at them as "strange", "different", "other" is a cruel and harmful thing to do.

Ask yourself whether a trans woman competing at the Olympics has much to do with the lived reality of most trans women. Pretty much zero. What it does do is say "you're accepted". There's no real harm in allowing it; nobody dies, no-one gets hurt, so why get so excited?

Now, think of the impact of all the anger poured out against a trans woman trying to compete at the Olympics. All it achieved was to say: "we don't accept your existence". It exposed anger, prejudice, bigotry. Is that a world that anyone wants to live in?
I think you are falling back into the trap of assuming bad motivations.

I cannot agree that transwomen are women etc. This is for several reasons. First, it doesn't fit what I understand as objective and scientifically established fact (which involves chromosomes and sex differences) and how that is described, and I think those fundamentals are important. Second, as a logical position, I just don't see how it is correct: the existence of the additional term "trans" precisely describes why the statement is wrong. For me to echo that statement (as is often required by activists) would be for me to lie, and nobody should be expected or required to lie. Third, accepting that statement leads to important practical consequences: e.g. public records like the census would have different data entered for M/F - this was an actual, UK effect that Stonewall lobbied for. This stuff has consequences, such as invalidating a key dataset that is used for medical and scientific research, which affects millions in the large number of conditions which have sex-determined aspects. These consequences are real and not trivial. At a minimum such a change should require serious consideration, not reflexive enforcement as an ideological canard.

None of these reasons are unsympathetic to trans people, but there are real objections and real consequences which transcend being sympathetic. To push an analogy to extremes, you wouldn't legitimise murder to accommodate the emotional desires of a serial killer. Similarly, we shouldn't prioritise the feelings of any individual or group over real effects and consequences on any other individual or group. These problems require an often difficult arbitration of what the balance should be.

Your argument about trans athletes is the same, as @BarcelonaAnalPark said. There are real opportunity costs: injury, the integrity of the concept of women's sport, the athletes who get bumped for a trans athlete. These aren't manufactured complaints, they are real things that have happened.

Your argument above is far too concerned with the perception of what certain decisions mean, and the feelings of how some might take them. They don't deal sufficiently with the real effects of what those decisions. This means - other than you want to protect the feelings of some people - I don't actually understand why you think these statements or actions are correct? Why do you think transwomen are women? How does that work in our scientific and social frameworks?

I oppose the fact that your argument implicitly favours the welfare and feelings of some individuals over the welfare and feelings of others, without sufficiently explaining why that is right or fair. To convince me, don't pick on the worst motivations of those against you: give me your best case for what you believe.

EDIT: For example, earlier I used the safeguarding case of children with (potential or real) autism and LGB sexualities being 'affirmed' as trans within GIDS. This concern was the substance of objections to GIDS practice raised internally and externally, was legally validated by the Bell vs Tavistock judgement, investigations into GIDS and subsequent changes to their guidlines. What is your argument around those safeguarding issues? Under the new guidelines, trans patients will not be affirmed, have to undergo more questioning and diagnostic sessions. Is protecting their feelings more important than the increased safeguarding measures? Again - all these are real problems of where to establish balances between potential or actual harm, as the High Court confirmed. Not malicious; not manufactured; real effects.

Reading back, I feel like I'm raising a lot of these "so what" worst case scenarios, whereas you tend to be assuring me that the general trend is that there are few to no problems, or they are overstated. The latter doesn't match the evidence we have available. I'd like you to address a few of the worst case scenarios, so I can see what the opposing argument is.
 
Last edited:

enpointe

Old-Salt
That profile was asked, by me, who they believed they represented but they weren't able to answer that.

I'm not entirely convinced that the profile is resourced to answer those questions.
or more the point i don't have the time effort or inclination to expend emotional labour to fulfill your needs for arousal

my position is in entirely congruent with the law as it standards and the EHRC guidance
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
At this point, I'm tempted suggest that you're now reinforcing the prejudices of those who you have to persuade - and allowing people to dismiss you as "unreasonable" (and thus to ignore any reasonable comments you make)

Yes, there are swivel-eyed evangelists, well-funded and (by most measures) evil, who are playing a vicious game of "divide and conquer" - first, we split off the Transgenders, and then we can go after the rest of LGB. The current "gender critical" debate is full of people saying one thing and meaning another.

But.

My baseline position is simple - that trans women are women; trans men are men. There are particular times and places where that becomes a battleground - for the activists on the morally upstanding exclusionary side who seek something, anything, to wield as "objective facts" to justify their prejudices reasoned position; for the activists on the woke idiots inclusionary side who see any compromise with bigots exclusionists as failure of principle. Terms struck out in a hopefully even-handed way to avoid my bias leaking through.

I'm aware that there has to be some careful, nuanced, and sensitive debate around edge cases (as with anything) - the depressing thing is when edge cases are presented as the whole debate. They aren't.

For instance; trans athletes. This was a convenient spark for trans-exclusionary types; but in reality, for all the noise and confusion and theoretical examples, no trans athlete has ever won a medal at the Olympics or World Championships. There are IOC guidelines around participation that include reassignment surgery and hormone level measurement; they appear to be working AFAICT.

Now think of the cruel humour directed at any woman who dares to do well in a strength/power-based sport. Women javelin/hammer throwers, heavyweight judoka, bodybuilders. Infantrywomen. Sorry, but that's simple misogyny IMHO; ask yourself how much crossover there is between the two.

Take Caster Semenya, born a woman, lives as a woman, but intersex. She probably grew up just thinking of herself as just a stronger girl than her peers. Should she be allowed to compete? If so, how can it be made fair? And what does "fairness" mean when most Olympic athletes are genetic anomalies anyway? Don't imagine that you will ever get into the England rugby team if you're a shortarse, or win the Tour de France if you're 6'7". I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there are plenty of people who have no idea that they're intersex - and that pointing fingers at them as "strange", "different", "other" is a cruel and harmful thing to do.

Ask yourself whether a trans woman competing at the Olympics has much to do with the lived reality of most trans women. Pretty much zero. What it does do is say "you're accepted". There's no real harm in allowing it; nobody dies, no-one gets hurt, so why get so excited?

Now, think of the impact of all the anger poured out against a trans woman trying to compete at the Olympics. All it achieved was to say: "we don't accept your existence". It exposed anger, prejudice, bigotry. Is that a world that anyone wants to live in?
an excellent and succinct summary , however it gives rather too much quarter to the exclusionasts as being anythign other than fascists they continue to demonstrate themselves to be and in the process of delivering their aims perfectly happy to harm cisgender gays and lesbians and reduce all cisgender women to chattels valued solely on breeding capacity and all children to chattels valuesd solely on further breeding potential

that may sound dehumanising but that is the reality of the exclusionist position, the only 'fully human' individual is the white cisgender heterosexual man anyone else is conditional on their approval
 
I think you are falling back into the trap of assuming bad motivations.

I cannot agree that transwomen are women etc. This is for several reasons. First, it doesn't fit what I understand as objective and scientifically established fact (which involves chromosomes and sex differences) and how that is described, and I think those fundamentals are important. Second, as a logical position, I just don't see how it is correct...

How about "for all reasonable purposes, trans women should be treated as women". Would that be more acceptable?

None of these reasons are unsympathetic to trans people, but there are real objections and real consequences which transcend being sympathetic.

I disagree - to say to someone who has gone through the distress, pain, and suffering of transition: "I don't care. You're not a woman"? That's unsympathetic. Making similar comments like "you're not a real woman", is unsympathetic (just like saying to a gay man; "you're not a real man" - or to someone with dark skin, "you can't be a real Scotsman").

And if you extend that into law: "we're going to treat you differently, because you're not a real person", it appears to me, to be wrong.

To push an analogy to extremes, you wouldn't legitimise murder to accommodate the emotional desires of a serial killer.

Think about that statement. Would you say that your analogy makes a "sympathetic comparison"?

I oppose the fact that your argument implicitly favours the welfare and feelings of some individuals over the welfare and feelings of others, without sufficiently explaining why that is right or fair. To convince me, don't pick on the worst motivations of those against you: give me your best case for what you believe
Yes, it's unreasonable to expect equal opportunity for everyone in every field. Someone with brittle bone disease, or who is only 4' tall, isn't going to make it into the England rugby team. But if you don't get in because your "face doesn't fit", then there's a problem - because your skin colour, or your religion, or your sexuality, has rock-all to do with how well you play rugby (or soldier).

Here's an attempt:

Let's try and be as inclusive as possible. A significant minority of the population don't "fit in" to the comfortable assumptions of the majority. That may be because they are LGBT, because their skin is a different colour, because they don't follow the established religion, because they are neurodivergent. As a society, we should be helping one another, not leaving entire groups behind. Except for gingers, obviously[1]

We'll know that we're being inclusive rather than exclusive, when the mix of people in each walk of life is a rough match to the mix of people in the general population, within reason. That's tricky with gender, because size/strength are significant, but it's worth asking things like "if we're now seeing recruit proportions match the racial mix of the general population, why don't we see Warrant Officer / Lieutenant Colonel proportions match it?"

[1] For the humour-impaired: it's a joke. My wife has gingerauburn hair.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
How about "for all reasonable purposes, trans women should be treated as women". Would that be more acceptable?



I disagree - to say to someone who has gone through the distress, pain, and suffering of transition: "I don't care. You're not a woman"? That's unsympathetic. Making similar comments like "you're not a real woman", is unsympathetic (just like saying to a gay man; "you're not a real man" - or to someone with dark skin, "you can't be a real Scotsman").

And if you extend that into law: "we're going to treat you differently, because you're not a real person", it appears to me, to be wrong.



Think about that statement. Would you say that your analogy makes a "sympathetic comparison"?


Yes, it's unreasonable to expect equal opportunity for everyone in every field. Someone with brittle bone disease, or who is only 4' tall, isn't going to make it into the England rugby team. But if you don't get in because your "face doesn't fit", then there's a problem - because your skin colour, or your religion, or your sexuality, has rock-all to do with how well you play rugby (or soldier).

Here's an attempt:

Let's try and be as inclusive as possible. A significant minority of the population don't "fit in" to the comfortable assumptions of the majority. That may be because they are LGBT, because their skin is a different colour, because they don't follow the established religion, because they are neurodivergent. As a society, we should be helping one another, not leaving entire groups behind. Except for gingers, obviously[1]

We'll know that we're being inclusive rather than exclusive, when the mix of people in each walk of life is a rough match to the mix of people in the general population, within reason. That's tricky with gender, because size/strength are significant, but it's worth asking things like "if we're now seeing recruit proportions match the racial mix of the general population, why don't we see Warrant Officer / Lieutenant Colonel proportions match it?"

[1] For the humour-impaired: it's a joke. My wife has gingerauburn hair.
What is a woman?
 
EDIT: For example, earlier I used the safeguarding case of children with (potential or real) autism and LGB sexualities being 'affirmed' as trans within GIDS. This concern was the substance of objections to GIDS practice raised internally and externally, was legally validated by the Bell vs Tavistock judgement, investigations into GIDS and subsequent changes to their guidlines. What is your argument around those safeguarding issues? Under the new guidelines, trans patients will not be affirmed, have to undergo more questioning and diagnostic sessions. Is protecting their feelings more important than the increased safeguarding measures? Again - all these are real problems of where to establish balances between potential or actual harm, as the High Court confirmed. Not malicious; not manufactured; real effects.
The increased safeguarding makes good sense. However, puberty blockers also make sense - buying time so that the additional time needed to determine / confirm the diagnosis, doesn't disadvantage the individual.

Talk to your gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends, and ask them what age they were, when they knew that they weren't straight. Ask what proportion were told "it's a phase, you'll grow out of it", or heard "it's just them acting up" or "I blame it on all of the propaganda on Social Media / TV". For most people I know, it was "before the age of 16" and "all too often" respectively. My unresearched / unevidenced / kneejerk reaction is to ask "why should the gender-dysphoric be any different?".

This is the reason why a lot of exclusionist attack is aimed directly at puberty-blocking drugs; precisely because it makes transition more difficult, more painful. It fits in with their instincts: "it's just a phase", "it's not a real thing, they're being silly".

Reading back, I feel like I'm raising a lot of these "so what" worst case scenarios, whereas you tend to be assuring me that the general trend is that there are few to no problems, or they are overstated. The latter doesn't match the evidence we have available. I'd like you to address a few of the worst case scenarios, so I can see what the opposing argument is.

My worry is that the relentless focus on the worst-case outcomes: "I transitioned, but I was wrong, and had to detransition, and it was painful, how could they" or perhaps "trans women can't be allowed to play rugby, they'll get carried away and snap people like a twig" aren't being treated as the edge cases that they are; but are being abused by exclusionists to undermine legitimacy of the entire process.

Of course we need to consider the possibility and reality of the edge cases; but not so much as to ignore the principles involved for the majority of cases.

An analogy would be those who take a false or exaggerated bullying allegation, and use it to claim that the Army had no problems at all with bullying, boys will be boys, can't make an omelette, it made me the man I am today. Yet you and I both know that it happens, we both know what it feels like, we both know that it's a reality.
 
The increased safeguarding makes good sense. However, puberty blockers also make sense - buying time so that the additional time needed to determine / confirm the diagnosis, doesn't disadvantage the individual.

Talk to your gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends, and ask them what age they were, when they knew that they weren't straight. Ask what proportion were told "it's a phase, you'll grow out of it", or heard "it's just them acting up" or "I blame it on all of the propaganda on Social Media / TV". For most people I know, it was "before the age of 16" and "all too often" respectively. My unresearched / unevidenced / kneejerk reaction is to ask "why should the gender-dysphoric be any different?".

This is the reason why a lot of exclusionist attack is aimed directly at puberty-blocking drugs; precisely because it makes transition more difficult, more painful. It fits in with their instincts: "it's just a phase", "it's not a real thing, they're being silly".
I am uneasy with the whole idea of puberty blockers as, from what I understand, they must be administered early and have irreversible effects. I spend my working life with 11-16 year olds and most of them I wouldn't trust to put their own clothes on in the morning.

I have absolutely no issue with treating them as they ask ie. name changes, pronouns, clothing, different changing rooms and toilets etc. but there is something disconcerting about the idea of pharmaceutically disrupting puberty. With those changes there is no long term damage if it does go wrong but the same cannot be said for puberty blocking drugs.

Just for context, in the last decade I can think of 1 transgender child I have been aware of. In the last year I can name another 4 and I know there are more that haven't openly said anything. Either that level of gender dysphoria has always been present but hidden much better or some of them are confusing normal hormonal and emotional changes for gender dysphoria.

I appreciate that sounds a lot like your exclusionist's logic but it comes from wanting to avoid unncessary harm rather than trying to make gender transition more painful.
 
Just for context, in the last decade I can think of 1 transgender child I have been aware of. In the last year I can name another 4 and I know there are more that haven't openly said anything. Either that level of gender dysphoria has always been present but hidden much better or some of them are confusing normal hormonal and emotional changes for gender dysphoria.

I appreciate that sounds a lot like your exclusionist's logic but it comes from wanting to avoid unncessary harm rather than trying to make gender transition more painful.

I quite agree - and more research is probably required. It's worth remembering that the same was said of dyslexia, and of autistic spectrum diagnoses; perhaps we are just better at diagnosis these days, rather than writing people off as "stupid" or "strange".

Mum was a primary teacher; in the first wave of those investigating dyslexia awareness during the early 1980s. Needless to say, I got lumbered with some of the assessment exercises as a "control group" (being very, very, non-dyslexic).

But I'd ask it the other way around - if the Tavistock mob are saying "for every 2,000 kids who thinks that they're gender-dysphoric, we're only putting 150 onto puberty-blockers", it seems as though the medical profession are mindful of the problem, and addressing it as a possibility.
 

StormsInAfrica

War Hero
I think you are falling back into the trap of assuming bad motivations.

I cannot agree that transwomen are women etc. This is for several reasons. First, it doesn't fit what I understand as objective and scientifically established fact (which involves chromosomes and sex differences) and how that is described, and I think those fundamentals are important. Second, as a logical position, I just don't see how it is correct: the existence of the additional term "trans" precisely describes why the statement is wrong. For me to echo that statement (as is often required by activists) would be for me to lie, and nobody should be expected or required to lie. Third, accepting that statement leads to important practical consequences: e.g. public records like the census would have different data entered for M/F - this was an actual, UK effect that Stonewall lobbied for. This stuff has consequences, such as invalidating a key dataset that is used for medical and scientific research, which affects millions in the large number of conditions which have sex-determined aspects. These consequences are real and not trivial. At a minimum such a change should require serious consideration, not reflexive enforcement as an ideological canard.

None of these reasons are unsympathetic to trans people, but there are real objections and real consequences which transcend being sympathetic. To push an analogy to extremes, you wouldn't legitimise murder to accommodate the emotional desires of a serial killer. Similarly, we shouldn't prioritise the feelings of any individual or group over real effects and consequences on any other individual or group. These problems require an often difficult arbitration of what the balance should be.

Your argument about trans athletes is the same, as @BarcelonaAnalPark said. There are real opportunity costs: injury, the integrity of the concept of women's sport, the athletes who get bumped for a trans athlete. These aren't manufactured complaints, they are real things that have happened.

Your argument above is far too concerned with the perception of what certain decisions mean, and the feelings of how some might take them. They don't deal sufficiently with the real effects of what those decisions. This means - other than you want to protect the feelings of some people - I don't actually understand why you think these statements or actions are correct? Why do you think transwomen are women? How does that work in our scientific and social frameworks?

I oppose the fact that your argument implicitly favours the welfare and feelings of some individuals over the welfare and feelings of others, without sufficiently explaining why that is right or fair. To convince me, don't pick on the worst motivations of those against you: give me your best case for what you believe.

EDIT: For example, earlier I used the safeguarding case of children with (potential or real) autism and LGB sexualities being 'affirmed' as trans within GIDS. This concern was the substance of objections to GIDS practice raised internally and externally, was legally validated by the Bell vs Tavistock judgement, investigations into GIDS and subsequent changes to their guidlines. What is your argument around those safeguarding issues? Under the new guidelines, trans patients will not be affirmed, have to undergo more questioning and diagnostic sessions. Is protecting their feelings more important than the increased safeguarding measures? Again - all these are real problems of where to establish balances between potential or actual harm, as the High Court confirmed. Not malicious; not manufactured; real effects.

Reading back, I feel like I'm raising a lot of these "so what" worst case scenarios, whereas you tend to be assuring me that the general trend is that there are few to no problems, or they are overstated. The latter doesn't match the evidence we have available. I'd like you to address a few of the worst case scenarios, so I can see what the opposing argument is.

Enpointe: you're not convincing anyone with the belt-fed use of "fascist".

I too would like you to address the above point in bold; what is the trade space between trans rights and womens rights? The above poster has clearly offered evidence that a trade apace exists.
 

Hairy-boab

Old-Salt
I think that it is worth avoiding defining many issues (don't ask questions when you don't want to know the answer!). For example abortion. I strongly believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. At the same time, I have absolutely no interest in reading about it, hearing about it, discussing it, or even thinking about it. This is something deeply personal.

The same is true of all the modern trans stuff, i.e. who is a woman etc. If pushed, I have opinions based upon biology. However, at the same time, if somebody wants to call themselves a man, woman, intersex, dog, cat, zebra or whatever, I am happy to prioritise making them happy and to tolerate their choices. I don't need to prove that my point of view is better/correct.

All of this works unless people start taking the piss. This includes very demonstrative things like establishing your right to stroke your boner in a womens spa, or it might be driving the issue to very binary choices (or imposing dumb language rules). When these things need defined or investigated, the best thing is for courts, doctors, etc to do so in a private, sensitive manner. The majority can help by ignoring those who try to over-expose these issues, and by being tolerant to people who are different. Less (a lot less!) social media all round would also help a lot.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
I think that it is worth avoiding defining many issues (don't ask questions when you don't want to know the answer!). For example abortion. I strongly believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. At the same time, I have absolutely no interest in reading about it, hearing about it, discussing it, or even thinking about it. This is something deeply personal.

The same is true of all the modern trans stuff, i.e. who is a woman etc. If pushed, I have opinions based upon biology. However, at the same time, if somebody wants to call themselves a man, woman, intersex, dog, cat, zebra or whatever, I am happy to prioritise making them happy and to tolerate their choices. I don't need to prove that my point of view is better/correct.

All of this works unless people start taking the piss. This includes very demonstrative things like establishing your right to stroke your boner in a womens spa, or it might be driving the issue to very binary choices (or imposing dumb language rules). When these things need defined or investigated, the best thing is for courts, doctors, etc to do so in a private, sensitive manner. The majority can help by ignoring those who try to over-expose these issues, and by being tolerant to people who are different. Less (a lot less!) social media all round would also help a lot.
It's a reoccurring theme in this debate that team "right side of history" aren't just the ones who support the idea of self-id, getting kids on puberty blockers & not defending against the erosion of women's rights & security, they are also unable to define what a woman is. It's all very curious.
 

Hairy-boab

Old-Salt
It's a reoccurring theme in this debate that team "right side of history" aren't just the ones who support the idea of self-id, getting kids on puberty blockers & not defending against the erosion of women's rights & security, they are also unable to define what a woman is. It's all very curious.
At the same time, any sane person knows what a woman is. What do we gain by trying to provoke loonies into exposing their extreme opinions?

It's tiny numbers of people who believe that you can self-declare as whatever. Their voices are currently over amplified because our generation is still learning social media. It will pass. In fact, I'd argue that it already is passing.

Edit: I think that a big part of this is also because we are still adapting to what are essentially lives of leisure, even for those at the bottom in the west. We are not religious, most people just bugger on at work. It is therefore attractive to get involved in activism etc, as it gives the illusion of meaning to life. This is ultimately a positive thing, provided that we can channel this need into creative things rather than social media dumpster fires. We should be much less tolerant of e.g. media types who can't see this.
 

Latest Threads

Top