TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Grenartia]

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

I'm not saying they are in conflict at all, nor am I saying that organisations like Women's Place UK have legitimate concerns or arguments, the merits of sex-segregated spaces or gender-segregated spaces for women have been litigated and debated to death. My point, and DI's point too, is simply that since both sex and gender are protected categories under the Equality Act 2010, when you're proposing GRA reform which necessarily affects the status of sex-segregated spaces, its only proper that the GRA consultation include representatives of sex-based classes, as well as representatives of gender-based classes, so you can hear both perspectives before making a reasoned policy decision at the end of the day. Hearing someone out isn't the same as agreeing with them. You can invite Women's Place UK to the table and listen to what they have to say and still disagree with every single one of their ideas at the end of the entire consultation.

For what it's worth, Women's Place UK, if they had their way, would repeal the GRA entirely and keep all women-only spaces sex-segregated, instead of gender-segregated. The current Government is not gonna do that, and have not proposed anything in that direction, all they've done is just not reform or amend the present GRA regime (which is what trans rights organisations wanted). So clearly, it is possible to invite a group of people for a consultation and NOT end up adopting the policies and measures that they support. And the idea that gender-critical feminists have huge support in the Government is kinda obviously belied by the fact that the Government did not end up adopting the suggested ideas that have long been championed by Women's Place UK.

There's more to it than WPUK being given a place at the table. Also, first you say this:

I'm not saying they are in conflict at all,

but then directly contradict yourself by saying this:

when you're proposing GRA reform which necessarily affects the status of sex-segregated spaces,

. So which is it?

The current Government is not gonna do that,

Are you sure about that?

And the idea that gender-critical feminists have huge support in the Government is kinda obviously belied by the fact that the Government did not end up adopting the suggested ideas that have long been championed by Women's Place UK.

No, it isn't belied at all.

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

> Make snide comments about "TERF Island"

A term I did not make up, and, in fact, was created by British trans people.

while asking why Britain has more prominent discourse for this side of the argument.
> Get mad when someone answers the question you asked in a neutral

Again, it was hardly "neutral", and came off as pretty condescending.

rather than explicitly critical way, throw out a cheap political slur

Put yourself in my shoes. Someone who I've had very few positive interactions with addresses me in a condescending tone, and uses 'both sides' as a point. My reaction is not at all unreasonable.

and refuse to engage.

Again, I've had so few positive interactions with you that refusing to engage with you is not only to prevent this thread from devolving into drama shitfests, but also due to a lack of evidence that any engaging with you will be productive at all. In fact, I very much wish I didn't have to engage with you right now, but I feel I must address this before it spirals into an unnecessary drama storm (god, I wish the foes list function did a better job of hiding people's posts when they're quoted). This will be my last response to you in any way, shape, or form.

> When people point out that you're being thoroughly unreasonable claim that their tone is the problem.

This thread has long been operating under false pretences. Your response and those of a number of other posters here

If everywhere you walk smells like shit, check your own shoes.

highlights the general point that the culture is to hypocritically tone-police, deflect and divert, and generally close down rather than enable discussion. This needs to change.

If I had actually done any of what you said, you would have a point.

This nonsense is doing our community no credit whatsoever.

The one thing we actually agree on.

It's time to admit that this thread has a problem

The only ones who seem to feel that way is you and some posters who only show up to concern troll and rile things up.

[Purgatio]

There's more to it than WPUK being given a place at the table. Also, first you say this:

I'm not saying they are in conflict at all,

but then directly contradict yourself by saying this:

when you're proposing GRA reform which necessarily affects the status of sex-segregated spaces,

. So which is it?

Lmao, what?? Like, where's the contradiction? No but seriously, do those words suddenly mean different things now?

"Affect" means something very different from "conflict". A policy can easily "affect" or have an impact on two groups of people, without their rights coming into "conflict", because "affect" only describes any impact or consequence on a group, whereas rights coming into "conflict" implies something that two groups are incompatibly normatively-entitled to have or enjoy. In academic terms, this is called the difference between positivism and normativity. "Affect" implies a positive difference. "Conflict of rights" implies a normative conflict of what different stakeholders are entitled to have.

For instance, writing an anti-discrimination law that requires Christian bakeries to serve gay customers, if they also serve straight customers, "affects" both gay people and Christians, no question about it. But does it involve a "conflict" of rights between them? Depends on how you define 'rights'. If you think Christians have an absolute right to religious freedom in commercial life, and gay people have an absolute right to non-discrimiantion in public life, then yes, there's clearly a "conflict" of rights. If you disagree with either the first or second of these normative claims (for instance, you disagree with the first claim, agree with the second claim), then this law has an "affect" on Christians and gays alike, but there's no "conflict" of rights between the two groups.

Same concept here. Amending the GRA 2004 into a system of self-identification will vastly increase the number of people with GRCs. According to Section 9 of the GRA 2004, a person with a GRC is to be regarded as holding the legal sex indicated on the GRC. This essentially means that a trans man or woman will be entitled to access all of the sex-segregated spaces which are exempted in Schedule 3, Sections 27-28, of the Equality Act 2010. Undoubtedly, then, this is a proposal that "affects" sex-based classes (biological women, whose interests are represented by Women's Place UK), as well as gender-based classes (trans men and women, whose interests are represented by trans rights groups like Stonewall UK), because it will vastly undercut the ability of the former to establish sex-segregated spaces, and will expand the ability of people in the latter group to enter sex-segregated spaces once they have a GRC.

Now that its clear GRA reform will "affect" the lives of a sex-based class, and a gender-based class, the next question is whether their rights "conflict". This is not a positive claim anymore, but a normative one. If you think that the former class is entitled to inviolable sex-segregated spaces, with no exceptions, and if you think the latter class is entitled to full legal recognition of their self-identified gender, and non-discriminatory treatment therefrom, with no exceptions, then there is a "conflict" of rights, so defined. However, if you disagree that the former right exists (as you clearly do), but you believe the latter right exists (as you clearly do), then there's no "conflict" of "rights".

See, unfortunately, it takes me so long to explain why the words "affect" and "conflict" mean very different things, when really this is just Language 101 and this explanation shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. But I don't like being accused of logical inconsistencies just because someone is either unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding the meaning of words like "affect", "rights", and "conflict". But there you go.

Are you sure about that?

Of course I'm sure, the GRA 2004's been in place ever since the Goodwin judgment, and as much as you exaggerate about 'TERFs' controlling the Government or whatever, Women's Place UK and Julie Bindel and other gender-critical feminists have been agitating for women-only spaces to be transformed back into sex-segregated spaces and for the Equality Act 2010 to be amended to omit references to gender identity for so many years now, and Conservative Government after Conservative Government has refused to do so. So yes, I'm absolutely sure.

The only 'evidence' suggesting otherwise is Vassenor's absurdly-entitled PinkNews article 'claiming' that Minister Badenoch was proposing to introduce a 'bathroom bill' which would implement exactly what Women's Place UK wants, a return to inviolable and untouchable sex-segregated spaces. However, as I've shown above by quoting from Minister Badenoch's actual words, this was a simple and unmitigated falsehood on Vassenor's part, and no such proposals have been made. At all. Because the Government doesn't intend to move in that direction. Instead, the Government has chosen a middle-of-the-road proposal between what the trans rights activists wanted (GRA reform to a self-identification system), and what women's rights advocates and gender-critical feminists wanted (impenetrable and inviolable sex-segregated spaces, no exceptions for gender identity). Which is, keeping the GRA 2004 what it is now, a highly-regulated process with medical and administrative gatekeeping and prerequisites like living as the desired gender for a few years beforehand and approval by a Gender Recognition Panel.

That's generally how politics works, compromise between different stakeholders. Keeping the GRA 2004 where it is now is a politically-sensible compromise and the Government has no desire, nor would it be in its political self-interests, to upset that balance, clearly. That's how its obvious that the Government has no intentions of caving into either side's desired proposals, but is steering a middle-course option of maintaining the status quo. We know this because that's what the Government did after the GRA consultation process ended.

No, it isn't belied at all.

Lol, fantastic response. Very persuasive arguments, I'm sold.

No, but really, you called the UK 'TERF island' and claimed it wasn't hyperbolic to describe TERFs as 'dominant' in the Government. Yet I explicitly pointed out to you that what Women's Place UK and gender-critical feminists like Julie Bindel want, what they've always wanted, is impenetrable and inviolable sex-segregated, women-only spaces, with no exceptions for gender identity or even GRC-holders. Clearly, thats not what's happened. The GRA 2004 has not been repealed. Gender identity remains a protected class under the Equality Act 2010. If 'TERFs' like Bindel and Women's Place UK were as politically-dominant as you claimed, neither of these things would be true, but they are.

Hence, it clearly 'belies' your assertion. If you want to rebut that argument, you have to provide an actual counter-argument without going "no, it isn't belied at all", because that's not an argument or a response. It's a bare and unsubstantiated assertion, nothing more.

[Grenartia]

There's more to it than WPUK being given a place at the table. Also, first you say this: but then directly contradict yourself by saying this: . So which is it?

Lmao, what?? Like, where's the contradiction? No but seriously, do those words suddenly mean different things now?

[condescending pedantry]

Same concept here. Amending the GRA 2004 into a system of self-identification will vastly increase the number of people with GRCs. According to Section 9 of the GRA 2004, a person with a GRC is to be regarded as holding the legal sex indicated on the GRC. This essentially means that a trans man or woman will be entitled to access all of the sex-segregated spaces which are exempted in Schedule 3, Sections 27-28, of the Equality Act 2010. Undoubtedly, then, this is a proposal that "affects" sex-based classes (biological women, whose interests are represented by Women's Place UK), as well as gender-based classes (trans men and women, whose interests are represented by trans rights groups like Stonewall UK), because it will vastly undercut the ability of the former to establish sex-segregated spaces, and will expand the ability of people in the latter group to enter sex-segregated spaces once they have a GRC.

Now that its clear GRA reform will "affect" the lives of a sex-based class, and a gender-based class, the next question is whether their rights "conflict". This is not a positive claim anymore, but a normative one. If you think that the former class is entitled to inviolable sex-segregated spaces, with no exceptions, and if you think the latter class is entitled to full legal recognition of their self-identified gender, and non-discriminatory treatment therefrom, with no exceptions, then there is a "conflict" of rights, so defined. However, if you disagree that the former right exists (as you clearly do), but you believe the latter right exists (as you clearly do), then there's no "conflict" of "rights".

See, unfortunately, it takes me so long to explain why the words "affect" and "conflict" mean very different things, when really this is just Language 101 and this explanation shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. But I don't like being accused of logical inconsistencies just because someone is either unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding the meaning of words like "affect", "rights", and "conflict". But there you go.

Sex-based rights are really just gender-based rights cloaked in cisnormativity. There is nothing about "sex-based rights" that isn't actually based on gender. Also, I know what "affect" and "conflict" mean, thank you very much.

Are you sure about that?

Of course I'm sure, the GRA 2004's been in place ever since the Goodwin judgment, and as much as you exaggerate about 'TERFs' controlling the Government

I never said "control".

or whatever, Women's Place UK and Julie Bindel and other gender-critical feminists have been agitating for women-only spaces to be transformed back into sex-segregated spaces and for the Equality Act 2010 to be amended to omit references to gender identity for so many years now, and Conservative Government after Conservative Government has refused to do so. So yes, I'm absolutely sure.

The only 'evidence' suggesting otherwise is Vassenor's absurdly-entitled PinkNews article 'claiming' that Minister Badenoch was proposing to introduce a 'bathroom bill' which would implement exactly what Women's Place UK wants, a return to inviolable and untouchable sex-segregated spaces.

A reasonable assumption to make, considering the degree of sway TERFs have in UK public discourse and politics.

However, as I've shown above by quoting from Minister Badenoch's actual words, this was a simple and unmitigated falsehood on Vassenor's part, and no such proposals have been made. At all.

When did you do that?

Because the Government doesn't intend to move in that direction.

Or is that just what they want you to think?

Instead, the Government has chosen a middle-of-the-road proposal between what the trans rights activists wanted (GRA reform to a self-identification system), and what women's rights advocates and gender-critical feminists wanted (impenetrable and inviolable sex-segregated spaces, no exceptions for gender identity). Which is, keeping the GRA 2004 what it is now, a highly-regulated process with medical and administrative gatekeeping and prerequisites like living as the desired gender for a few years beforehand and approval by a Gender Recognition Panel.

So, still siding with the TERFs even if not marching in lock step with everything they demand.

That's generally how politics works, compromise between different stakeholders. Keeping the GRA 2004 where it is now is a politically-sensible compromise

Not if you value basic human rights and dignity. This is just 'enlightened centrism' at its finest.

and the Government has no desire, nor would it be in its political self-interests, to upset that balance, clearly.

Damn, I wish I lived in your reality, where the government is always just and pragmatic, and there's no negative consequences to any decision (or indecision) it makes.

That's how its obvious that the Government has no intentions of caving into either side's desired proposals, but is steering a middle-course option of maintaining the status quo. We know this because that's what the Government did after the GRA consultation process ended.

Ah, yes, cut the baby in half.

No, it isn't belied at all.

Lol, fantastic response. Very persuasive arguments, I'm sold.

You made the claim that it is belied, with no convincing facts or logic to support it. Burden of proof is on you. Not me.

No, but really, you called the UK 'TERF island'

Again, plenty of British trans people did it first on Twitter. If that name hurts your feelings so much, talk to them about it, not me.

and claimed it wasn't hyperbolic to describe TERFs as 'dominant' in the Government.

I never said 'dominant', either. You can stop putting words in my mouth any fucking time you'd like. Or would you like me to turn the tables and give you a condescending run-down on the meaning of "too much sway" and "dominant" and "in control of", and the differences between them?

Yet I explicitly pointed out to you that what Women's Place UK and gender-critical feminists like Julie Bindel want, what they've always wanted, is impenetrable and inviolable sex-segregated, women-only spaces, with no exceptions for gender identity or even GRC-holders. Clearly, thats not what's happened. The GRA 2004 has not been repealed. Gender identity remains a protected class under the Equality Act 2010. If 'TERFs' like Bindel and Women's Place UK were as politically-dominant as you claimed, neither of these things would be true, but they are.

Here's the thing. That argument hinges on trans issues being visible ever since 2004, and on open TERFs being respected voices on this issue before then.

It also ignores the fact that the GRA 2004 is deeply flawed (hence why so many trans people want it to be reformed), and assumes an incorrect arrangements of the 'victory' conditions for trans people and TERFs. TERFs don't just win when the GRA is repealed. They also win when the status quo is maintained.

Hence, it clearly 'belies' your assertion. If you want to rebut that argument, you have to provide an actual counter-argument without going "no, it isn't belied at all", because that's not an argument or a response. It's a bare and unsubstantiated assertion, nothing more.

There was nothing substantial for me to argue against or respond to in the first place, at least not without crafting a strawman. You made the bare and unsubstantiated assertion, not me.

[Uiiop]

Like, seriously, that is fucked up. And how can anyone deny that TERFs have too much sway in the UK?

The Equality Act created a legal framework where every protected characteristic group knows that the government has a legal responsibility not to pass anything with the potential to cause them harm. This has of course encouraged the establishment of permanent "insider" lobby groups who've tapped up sympathetic MPs to make their case in public and who will engage with government on controversial issues. Why wouldn't TERFs, as a group who feel that their identity and their physical safety is under threat from any weakening of biological sex segregation, have a lobby? Why would their concerns not be given serious evaluation? If you have to balance the concerns of two groups of people whose characteristics you're obliged to protect then you'll tend to get policy that is a compromise rather than progressing towards one side having their interests favoured. TERFs get equal influence to trans people on policy related to this issue - I'm sure they think trans people have too much influence in the US!

You want discussion? Fine.

I can see as an neutral description that is mainly critique of the Act's enforcement of IDpol but the conclusion it reaches is absurd.

Like any critic of racism and Idpol will come to the conclusion that de jure laws of equality and representation does not equate to de facto equality. Therefore to say two groups are equal due to the what the law is on paper is just silly argumentation. Not every voice is going to be Representative of these group; both corruption and partisan agendas are going to detrimne no matter what the law says who even going to get a seat and who's going to be bothred to listened to..

An outside observer doesn't actually follow this de jure logic and is probably more going to view this point as though an ideological lens.

The fact you were trying to just assert that both groups who current are believed to have different amonunts of power and then claim the party is listening to both ends and meeting in the middle despite their behavior on the current crisis and brexit is so odd that for a second i got confused and i find what conclusions the other led to understandable. That was wrong of me and i accept your clarity
It was wrong to portray you to as just wanting to be recruited by bigots as a token. I disagree with what you posted but i honestly view it as your good faith attempts to improve the community as a whole even by that you mean having trans acceptance assimilate out to others and end the idea of a united one.

[Purgatio]

Sex-based rights are really just gender-based rights cloaked in cisnormativity. There is nothing about "sex-based rights" that isn't actually based on gender. Also, I know what "affect" and "conflict" mean, thank you very much.

Lol "I know what you meant but I'll still accuse of a contradiction even though the words mean different things". Okay, thanks, that's very believable.

I never said "control".

No, you just said TERFs have 'too much political influence', 'too much sway in the UK', and called the UK 'TERF Island', but whatever.

A reasonable assumption to make, considering the degree of sway TERFs have in UK public discourse and politics.

Yeah no, its never reasonable to entitle an article in a misleading way that misrepresents what the article actually says. The obligation is always on the person who decides to link a source, to, you know, actually read what the source says, so you don't end up lying about its contents. Don't link things if you're not willing to read them. Not hard at all.

When did you do that?

Here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37351084#p37351084

And also here, when Vass decided she should try and actively dodge the question of whether she misrepresented the PinkNews article's contents: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37351314#p37351314

Or is that just what they want you to think?

Yeah, no, I read what Equalities Minister Badenoch actually said. That's not difficult.

So, still siding with the TERFs even if not marching in lock step with everything they demand.

Political compromise is not 'siding' with one side of the debate. If I demand a policy, and you demand a policy, and the Government adopts a policy that's a middle-ground between what you and I want, making neither of us completely-happy, that's not 'siding' with me. From the perspective of people like Women's Place UK, the Government is 'siding' with trans rights activists by not amending the Equalities Act 2010 and not repealing the GRA 2004. They're clearly not, obviously, because the Government's compromised between Women's Place UK and trans activists like Stonewall UK.

Not if you value basic human rights and dignity. This is just 'enlightened centrism' at its finest.

That wasn't what I said. I called it a "politically-sensible compromise", whether it's morally justifiable or acceptable is a totally different matter.

Damn, I wish I lived in your reality, where the government is always just and pragmatic, and there's no negative consequences to any decision (or indecision) it makes.

More like I live in the reality where the GRA consultation process has ended and the Government's made a choice to leave things where they are and not amend the GRA or any related legislation. You know, that reality.

Ah, yes, cut the baby in half.

Welcome to politics, I guess?

You made the claim that it is belied, with no convincing facts or logic to support it. Burden of proof is on you. Not me.

Well...no....what I said was...

"For what it's worth, Women's Place UK, if they had their way, would repeal the GRA entirely and keep all women-only spaces sex-segregated, instead of gender-segregated. The current Government is not gonna do that, and have not proposed anything in that direction, all they've done is just not reform or amend the present GRA regime (which is what trans rights organisations wanted). So clearly, it is possible to invite a group of people for a consultation and NOT end up adopting the policies and measures that they support. And the idea that gender-critical feminists have huge support in the Government is kinda obviously belied by the fact that the Government did not end up adopting the suggested ideas that have long been championed by Women's Place UK."

That's not nothing. An argument doesn't just go away because you pretend it was never made.

Again, plenty of British trans people did it first on Twitter. If that name hurts your feelings so much, talk to them about it, not me.

Lmao, such an intellectually-cowardly response. "But...but...other people did it first....they did it first...."

It doesn't 'hurt my feelings', its just inaccurate. 'TERF Island' implies that the country's leadership and governance is dominated by gender-critical feminists, or TERFs as you insist on calling them. Its not true. Its hyperbolic and a gross exaggeration to suggest that gender-critical feminists run or control the nation, which is what 'TERF island' implies. Defending an inaccurate characterisation by saying "but other people have made the same inaccurate characterisation" is....ridiculous. That's not a defence. At all. One has no relation to the other.

If you insist on using the phrase, you can't defend its accuracy by claiming other people used it first. You have to explain why you, individually, regard 'TERF Island' as an accurate characterisation of the UK, or stop using the phrase.

I never said 'dominant', either. You can stop putting words in my mouth any fucking time you'd like. Or would you like me to turn the tables and give you a condescending run-down on the meaning of "too much sway" and "dominant" and "in control of", and the differences between them?

If you've taken a class in journalism or writing before, you'd know that the full quotation marks (" ") mean something very different from the half-quotation marks (' '). The former is when you're directly quoting someone's words, the latter is when you're paraphrasing. This is such a well-known use of punctuation that it was even discussed in a federal defamation case in a SCOTUS judgment (Masson v. New Yorker).

No, you didn't use the exact words "dominant". You said TERFs have "too much sway" in the UK", "a lot of political influence" in the Government, and then call the UK "TERF Island". Clearly, you're trying to characterise gender-critical feminists as having massive political influence in the UK, as in they are powerful and dominant force in the nation. That's what those phrases, considered in totality, imply to any reasonable reader. This is nothing more than a disingenuous bait-and-switch.

Here's the thing. That argument hinges on trans issues being visible ever since 2004, and on open TERFs being respected voices on this issue before then.

It also ignores the fact that the GRA 2004 is deeply flawed (hence why so many trans people want it to be reformed), and assumes an incorrect arrangements of the 'victory' conditions for trans people and TERFs. TERFs don't just win when the GRA is repealed. They also win when the status quo is maintained.

So much to respond to here. Okay, first of all, gender-critical feminism's opposition to the GRA 2004 and other rights for people who want to change or transition to a different gender in the eyes of the law, has been around for a really, really long time. Julie Bindel's famous 'Gender Benders, Beware!' article for The Guardian was published in January 2004 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7). Germaine Greer (who lives in the UK) has been around for longer than I can even remember, and she published her famous gender-critical piece, The Whole Woman, way back in 1999. Gender-critical feminism's been a big part of academic feminism for a really long time. As for the activism side, Woman's Place UK has been around since 2017. If these people were really as dominant a force as you keep claiming, I find it baffling that the GRA 2004 even exists still (since a GRC-holder can enter any sex-segregated space, since Section 9 states that a GRC-holder is to be regarded as a holder of the legal sex indicated, not just the gender indicated), and I find it baffling that when the Equality Act 2010 was enacted, it included gender identity and gender reassignment status as a protected class or category, instead of limiting the protected category to biological sex alone, and I also find it baffling that neither of these key pieces of legislation, have been amended under the agitation and influence of gender-critical feminist activists.

Gender-critical feminists also don't "win when the status quo is maintained". Not reforming the GRA is the status quo. The status quo is by definition a compromise. If compromise between trans rights activists, and gender-critical feminists, means that gender-critical feminists win in your view, then how is that position any different from a gender-critical feminist claiming that trans rights activists 'win' when the GRA is not repealed and the Equality Act is not amended to remove gender as a protected class? This is an amorphous definition of "win". If not getting everything you want means the other side "wins", then by that logic, both trans rights activists and gender-critical feminists have 'won' after the GRA consultation process ended, neither side got what they wanted, and the Government's decided to just leave the GRA unamended and unrepealed.

There was nothing substantial for me to argue against or respond to in the first place, at least not without crafting a strawman. You made the bare and unsubstantiated assertion, not me.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=463149&p=37352039#p37352039

For what it's worth, Women's Place UK, if they had their way, would repeal the GRA entirely and keep all women-only spaces sex-segregated, instead of gender-segregated. The current Government is not gonna do that, and have not proposed anything in that direction, all they've done is just not reform or amend the present GRA regime (which is what trans rights organisations wanted). So clearly, it is possible to invite a group of people for a consultation and NOT end up adopting the policies and measures that they support. And the idea that gender-critical feminists have huge support in the Government is kinda obviously belied by the fact that the Government did not end up adopting the suggested ideas that have long been championed by Women's Place UK.

I feel like we have a different understanding of what a "bare and unsubstantiated assertion" means. A "bare and unsubstantiated assertion" is not an accurate descriptor of my argument, as quoted above. Its a more accurate descriptor of someone who responds to the above-quoted text with "No, it isn't belied at all", and literally nothing else.

[Vassenor]

So it's kind of fun watching the FARTs try to explain Margaret Atwood's own book to her given the massive irony blinkers involved.

[Auzkhia]

So it's kind of fun watching the FARTs try to explain Margaret Atwood's own book to her given the massive irony blinkers involved.

You mean the person who wrote books about why reducing women to babymakers is bad is supportive of trans people?

[Grenartia]

So it's kind of fun watching the FARTs try to explain Margaret Atwood's own book to her given the massive irony blinkers involved.

You mean the person who wrote books about why reducing women to babymakers is bad is supportive of trans people?

So many surprised pikachu faces from them.

[Auzkhia]

You mean the person who wrote books about why reducing women to babymakers is bad is supportive of trans people?

So many surprised pikachu faces from them.

They call cis allies "handmaidens" even though it is TERFs who insist that you can only be a woman if you are able to push life out of a sacred passage.

[The Blaatschapen]

So many surprised pikachu faces from them.

They call cis allies "handmaidens" even though it is TERFs who insist that you can only be a woman if you are able to push life out of a sacred passage.

Such a sacred passage, only a select few will ever pass through it.

[New Bremerton]

Eight consecutive ignored posts in a row. That's a record. Anyway, some transphobic, religious BS coming out of Malaysia:

Minister gives 'full licence' for authorities to act against transgenders

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of religious affairs Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri has given “full licence” to the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) to take action against the transgender community.

He said it is not just about arrests, but also to provide religious education so that the transgender community will “return to the right path”.

“I have given all Jawi authorities full licence to carry out its enforcement actions, as well as they can, in the Federal Territories.

“With the condition that they must comply with the standard operating procedures (SOPs) which have been put in place,” Zulkifli (above) said in a Facebook post today.

Previously, cosmetic entrepreneur Nur Sajat, who is transgender, went viral among netizens again for her controversial posts on social media where she allegedly wore inappropriate outfits.

Sajat’s posts have incited netizens who urged the authorities to take action against her.

Pencetus Ummah (PU) member Syed Bakri al-Yahya was one of those who urged the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government to take strict action on this issue.

He urged PAS leaders, ministers, and religious officers to take immediate action against Nur Sajat (photo) who he described as becoming "more daring" as she had posted pictures of herself wearing a bikini on social media.

“I remember under Pakatan Harapan’s minister in charge of religious affairs Mujahid Yusof Rawa, when he was friendly towards the LGBT community, we criticised him for not being firm on this issue. Now we hope the PN minister in charge will explain this issue.

“If during Harapan’s time, we said the minister was not performing and so on, we hope the minister now, under PN, will carry out his duties, that the officers will carry out their duties, and the religious department responsible will take action.

“Please convey to the minister in charge and PAS, for example, what we need to do or what the NGOs stand is, to prevent what is happening,” Syed said on social media.

Zulkifli had said that Islam is a religion that seeks to educate and it is the authorities’ responsibility to mentor those who have strayed from the path so that they will change.

“We do not want to just arrest them, but what is most important is tarbiah (educate) them wisely so that they (transgender community) will come back to the right path.

“Islam is a religion that seeks to educate. This requires coordinated efforts from all agencies under the religious affairs department in the prime minister’s department,” he said.

A Malaysian Islamist bigot minister seeks to round up and "re-educate" trans Malaysians Uighur-style. Here's what they're so offended about:

Image censored by MKini likely out of fear of legal repercussions.

Like *totally* pornographic and indecent.

[Grenartia]

Eight consecutive ignored posts in a row. That's a record. Anyway, some transphobic, religious BS coming out of Malaysia:

Minister gives 'full licence' for authorities to act against transgenders

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of religious affairs Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri has given “full licence” to the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) to take action against the transgender community.

He said it is not just about arrests, but also to provide religious education so that the transgender community will “return to the right path”.

“I have given all Jawi authorities full licence to carry out its enforcement actions, as well as they can, in the Federal Territories.

“With the condition that they must comply with the standard operating procedures (SOPs) which have been put in place,” Zulkifli (above) said in a Facebook post today.

Previously, cosmetic entrepreneur Nur Sajat, who is transgender, went viral among netizens again for her controversial posts on social media where she allegedly wore inappropriate outfits.

Sajat’s posts have incited netizens who urged the authorities to take action against her.

Pencetus Ummah (PU) member Syed Bakri al-Yahya was one of those who urged the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government to take strict action on this issue.

He urged PAS leaders, ministers, and religious officers to take immediate action against Nur Sajat (photo) who he described as becoming "more daring" as she had posted pictures of herself wearing a bikini on social media.

“I remember under Pakatan Harapan’s minister in charge of religious affairs Mujahid Yusof Rawa, when he was friendly towards the LGBT community, we criticised him for not being firm on this issue. Now we hope the PN minister in charge will explain this issue.

“If during Harapan’s time, we said the minister was not performing and so on, we hope the minister now, under PN, will carry out his duties, that the officers will carry out their duties, and the religious department responsible will take action.

“Please convey to the minister in charge and PAS, for example, what we need to do or what the NGOs stand is, to prevent what is happening,” Syed said on social media.

Zulkifli had said that Islam is a religion that seeks to educate and it is the authorities’ responsibility to mentor those who have strayed from the path so that they will change.

“We do not want to just arrest them, but what is most important is tarbiah (educate) them wisely so that they (transgender community) will come back to the right path.

“Islam is a religion that seeks to educate. This requires coordinated efforts from all agencies under the religious affairs department in the prime minister’s department,” he said.

A Malaysian Islamist bigot minister seeks to round up and "re-educate" trans Malaysians Uighur-style. Here's what they're so offended about:

Image censored by MKini likely out of fear of legal repercussions.

Like *totally* pornographic and indecent.

Yikes. What the fuck is wrong in Malaysia?

[VVerkia]

When someone is men, then is men, even with trans history. If someone is women, then is women, even with trans history. education, reeducation etc. doesn't change it. Only can fake it. But for who? Not for individual peoples. Someone can simply want to "reeducate" cis men to be women or cis women to become men... It doesn't work. Only more and more lies. All what can be done, are "efforts" to change behaviour, not who someone is really. And i don't recognize it as morally good to shape someone to "standard" unindividual shape, doing breaking, manipulating, catching in fear, luring etc. etc. It can be describe similar as forcing someone to marriage, to love, to sex, to change believes etc. - it isn't valid. When someone wants to do it, only can see change of surface if someone is frightened or due to other reasons. If someone want to change surface, then it's stupid, unnecessary, time and cost consuming. Only wasting and immorality.

[Hediacrana]

Because we probably all can use a bit of silly fun right now.

[Atheris]

Eight consecutive ignored posts in a row. That's a record. Anyway, some transphobic, religious BS coming out of Malaysia:

Minister gives 'full licence' for authorities to act against transgenders

A Malaysian Islamist bigot minister seeks to round up and "re-educate" trans Malaysians Uighur-style. Here's what they're so offended about:

Image censored by MKini likely out of fear of legal repercussions.

Like *totally* pornographic and indecent.

Yikes. What the fuck is wrong in Malaysia?

How long do you have?

[Proctopeo]

Eight consecutive ignored posts in a row. That's a record. Anyway, some transphobic, religious BS coming out of Malaysia:

Minister gives 'full licence' for authorities to act against transgenders

A Malaysian Islamist bigot minister seeks to round up and "re-educate" trans Malaysians Uighur-style. Here's what they're so offended about:

(Image)

Image censored by MKini likely out of fear of legal repercussions.

Like *totally* pornographic and indecent.

Yikes. What the fuck is wrong in Malaysia?

Take a guess as to what the dominant religion is

[Cekoviu]

Yikes. What the fuck is wrong in Malaysia?

Take a guess as to what the dominant religion is

judaism?

[Kowani]

Take a guess as to what the dominant religion is

The issue is not so much Islam as it is conservatism, which is using Islam as its vehicle of choice.

[Proctopeo]

Take a guess as to what the dominant religion is

The issue is not so much Islam as it is conservatism, which is using Islam as its vehicle of choice.

The two have a tendency to go hand in hand.

Take a guess as to what the dominant religion is

judaism?

no it's SUNNYD

[Kowani]

The issue is not so much Islam as it is conservatism, which is using Islam as its vehicle of choice.

The two have a tendency to go hand in hand.

Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

[Proctopeo]

The two have a tendency to go hand in hand.

Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

That's not the whole picture, but sure, let's go with that for now.

[Vassenor]

The two have a tendency to go hand in hand.

Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

But that would mean the problem isn't Islam being inherently the root of all the evils of the world. A title it somehow shares with China.

[Proctopeo]

Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

But that would mean the problem isn't Islam being inherently the root of all the evils of the world. A title it somehow shares with China.

What the hell are you on about?

[Kowani]

Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

That's not the whole picture, but sure, let's go with that for now.

Shrug. Islam is just like every other religion. When the factors that prevent evolution are omnipresent, then of course it’ll end up being more conservative.

[Maccian]

So I was on TikTok and I keep seeing people saying that not wanting to date a trans person simply because of the fact that they are trans is transphobic. Some people may want biological children or are uncomfortable with certain genitalia. What are your guy's thoughts on this?