[Malcolm Armsteen]

Yes. That is a sticking point for me, too.

[mr angry manchester]

If you are self identifying, could you identify as anything you want? Like a hamster for example? I struggle with this stuff I'm afraid.

Think I'll be an Australian today, G'day Bruce, ows it going?

[visage]

Its dismissed as being vanishingly unlikely, but I think given the repercussions its something that needs to be explained before we should proceed.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Can’t write at the moment but will explain my thoughts later.

[The Weeping Angel]

Catkins explained the situation a lot better than I can. We've already seen this being abused by the likes of Karen White whose victims were dismissed by our esteemed ex-mod as dangerous lesbians. With trans rights you get people who are just self-righteous bell ends who use this issue as an excuse to treat people especially women like shit. The misogynsitic abuse that J.K. Rowlig recieved is a good example of this.

[mr angry manchester]

I'm with TWA on this. The vast bulk of people see this kind of stuff as seriously weird and it gets associated in the public mind with what is defined as "the left"

It has the effect of assisting working class voters towards right wing populists.

[Andy McDandy]

I'm conflicted. I know people who are trans, and who obviously take the issue very seriously.

I also know a couple of people who say they're trans but they have a history of wanting to be the centre of attention. However the amount of shit one opens oneself to suggests to me that nobody would willingly do so unless they were serious. Or there's something else going on.

I think that if you 'jokingly' self-declare as a woman/man/penguin (as Piers Moron did), whether it be to perv on people, or to test rules on all-women shortlists to destruction, if your declaration is in any way linked to "pwning the libs", you should be repeatedly kicked in the bollocks until you're in some respects functionally a woman. But who is to decide who's genuine or taking the piss?

My issue is one of self-declaration. And yes, I'm aware that anything else - sexuality, political or religious leanings - one can self-declare (although many religions say you can't just switch, and sexuality isn't a choice). There also seems to me to be a big difference between going through reassignment therapy and putting on a dress. But what do I know?

I just think that there must be some method of weeding out the piss takers and perverts, however few there may be, and yes, presumption of innocence and all that. In the meantime, individual toilets and get rid of communal changing rooms.

[mr angry manchester]

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who is trans, not knowingly anyway. There was this woman who worked at this shitty legal expenses place I was at for about 6 weeks once who looked like Bernard Manning, suppose she could have been.

Another thing is why is it that lesbians in the real world never look like the ones in my mate Rob's videos?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I just think that there must be some method of weeding out the piss takers and perverts, however few there may be, and yes, presumption of innocence and all that. In the meantime, individual toilets and get rid of communal changing rooms.

I know a couple of trans people and I dealt with one as a head of year. I have no issues with people changing gender, because I believe that it is entirely possible to be born with the 'wrong' genitalia, or to have a psyche that does not match physique.

The issue for me is the need for, and maintenance of, women's spaces.

Back in 1985 Mrs A was one of the group of feminists in our local borough who took advantage of Labour's generous funding to set up a Women's Centre. It was a lot of work, and she was one of the original planners and trustees, so I feel that I have some insight into the underpinnings, so to speak.

One issue which soon arose was the admission of males into the women's space. At one level this was about not being able to find a female plumber (not such an issue nowadays) or allowing male children into the creche. At another level, however, this was about trans women who were pre-op and whether or not they should be considered male or female. The eventual decision came down to a judgement - was the person genuinely transitioning or, as Andy put it, taking the piss. In fact both the cases that had to be decided upon were the former, and not the latter.

The matter now, it seems to me and I may be wrong, comes down to self-identification, and cases where non-trans men - some wearing beards ffs - have entered women's spaces and justified that by 'self identifying'. Now I know that the process of transitioning is very hard, involving psychological assessments, medical and surgical interventions and social adjustments that may be far from pleasant. For those people I have no question. But simply to say you identify as a woman is not a qualification for being treated as a woman. And yes, it is a very strong argument that we should accept the person's self-definition because it is theirs to make. In the early days of the transitioning process the person may be 'part-time' or testing the waters. So self-definition is important.

However, if someone uses that situation to assault, intimidate or seek gratification by invading women's spaces they can never again be allowed to self-identify. They have shown themselves for what they are, and should be treated as such.

My understanding is that the key issue is the degree to which self-identification must remain unchallenged. (I believe that to be the case for many 'TERFs'). The commitment to safeguarding women.

Unlike Greer and others I don't believe that gender is unalterable, and I'm not totally certain of Rowling's position on that. Unlike Linehan I believe that most trans people are genuine and working from a pretty poor hand, psychologically, and deserve empathy and support. But the constant hectoring from the likes of Kobel says much more about them than about the very tricky moral choices and decisions that have to be made. Abusing people, ascribing views to them that they don't in fact hold, treating allies as enemies and flaunting their right-on purity I find to be as distasteful as any other extremist ideology. It says a great deal more about them than the situation which requires to be resolved. But they seem to have hijacked the argument.

Finally, there are questions which don't have answers and problems which don't have solutions - at least not simple ones like shouting slogans. In the end there has to be compromise and pragmatism. Seeing individuals instead of categories. Treating people like people and not acronyms.

[Abernathy]

Back in 1985 Mrs A was one of the group of feminists in our local borough ....so I feel that I have some insight into the underpinnings, so to speak.

FNARR.

[Kreuzberger]

In the meantime, individual toilets and get rid of communal changing rooms.

A "strongly agree" from me apart from the bit about the bogs, unless I am picking that up wrongly. Women's are all individual anyway.

In our neighbourhood, a fluid approach works just fine.

[Abernathy]

I'm always been inclined to agree with Simone de Beauvoir's rather simple take on gender identity :

Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, and is going around being a woman, as far as I'm concerned, is a woman.

Also subscribed to by the immortal Roy Cropper.

[Catkins]

I'm always been inclined to agree with Simone de Beauvoir's rather simple take on gender identity :

Then, for example, you have to accept that 1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK, who identify as female, ought to be moved to female prisons, along with Karen White.

I don't think that Rowling's actual essay, setting out her stance, has been linked to, so here it is.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

I challenge you to find anything hateful or bigoted in it (unless you think that it's literal violence to question any man about what he says he is).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Wow.
Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it. I feel supported by that.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I love that Mailwatchers can have a civil, and I think constructive, conversation on a contentious topic. It's so different when we don't have a wossname diving in and insulting people for not sharing his views. And insisting they answer his rather odd questions and prove their purity. I may even pop in to the POTUS 2020 thread now.