The Trans Rights Debate

https://news.stv.tv/sport/scottish-f...itive-football

SFA rule updated so only biological females can play in the woman's game.

Worth noting this impacts no current players - but seems reasonable to have the rule in place proactively. .

I think I agree with it. Competitive sport seems one of the more clear areas in the Trans debate although with reservation that it is a shame if this discourages trans women from participating in sport in future.


As a side note: how sad that it doesn't take many Twitter comments before the inevitable "*men" aimed at correcting the article headline and deliberate misgendering occurs. News that presumably aligns with their way of thinking and they still can't help but have a bitter dig at others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

https://news.stv.tv/sport/scottish-f...itive-football

SFA rule updated so only biological females can play in the woman's game.

Worth noting this impacts no current players - but seems reasonable to have the rule in place proactively. .

I think I agree with it. Competitive sport seems one of the more clear areas in the Trans debate although with reservation that it is a shame if this discourages trans women from participating in sport in future.


As a side note: how sad that it doesn't take many Twitter comments before the inevitable "*men" aimed at correcting the article headline and deliberate misgendering occurs. News that presumably aligns with their way of thinking and they still can't help but have a bitter dig at others.

---

I'm not sure if I posted on this thread about it but I watched a game last season with a trans female playing striker in a women's game and it wasn't comfortable viewing. She absolutely bullied a young CB for about 40 minutes, reducing her to tears before she was subbed off. It wasn't just a physical mismatch, which can happen in any football, it was someone with the muscular advantages of a grown man rag dolling a 16 year old girl.

I felt sorry for both parties tbh. The defender because she was clearly hurt physically and emotionally by the game and was placed in a very uncomfortable position. I also felt exceptionally sorry for the striker. She is a really nice person who loves football and just wants to play. I don't like to see barriers put in place of anyone playing the game but sometimes you have to reluctantly agree there is just cause.

**** knows what the solution is right enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I'm not sure if I posted on this thread about it but I watched a game last season with a trans female playing striker in a women's game and it wasn't comfortable viewing. She absolutely bullied a young CB for about 40 minutes, reducing her to tears before she was subbed off. It wasn't just a physical mismatch, which can happen in any football, it was someone with the muscular advantages of a grown man rag dolling a 16 year old girl.

I felt sorry for both parties tbh. The defender because she was clearly hurt physically and emotionally by the game and was placed in a very uncomfortable position. I also felt exceptionally sorry for the striker. She is a really nice person who loves football and just wants to play. I don't like to see barriers put in place of anyone playing the game but sometimes you have to reluctantly agree there is just cause.

**** knows what the solution is right enough.

---

I don't think there's an "ideal" solution but I guess either a "trans woman's league" which I don't imagine will have enough interest to take off... or the striker here plays in the men's league - I imagine that would feel uncomfortable for them though but probably the correct thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I'm not sure if I posted on this thread about it but I watched a game last season with a trans female playing striker in a women's game and it wasn't comfortable viewing. She absolutely bullied a young CB for about 40 minutes, reducing her to tears before she was subbed off. It wasn't just a physical mismatch, which can happen in any football, it was someone with the muscular advantages of a grown man rag dolling a 16 year old girl.

I felt sorry for both parties tbh. The defender because she was clearly hurt physically and emotionally by the game and was placed in a very uncomfortable position. I also felt exceptionally sorry for the striker. She is a really nice person who loves football and just wants to play. I don't like to see barriers put in place of anyone playing the game but sometimes you have to reluctantly agree there is just cause.

**** knows what the solution is right enough.

---

I think they have come up with the correct solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

https://news.stv.tv/sport/scottish-f...itive-football

SFA rule updated so only biological females can play in the woman's game.

Worth noting this impacts no current players - but seems reasonable to have the rule in place proactively. .

I think I agree with it. Competitive sport seems one of the more clear areas in the Trans debate although with reservation that it is a shame if this discourages trans women from participating in sport in future.


As a side note: how sad that it doesn't take many Twitter comments before the inevitable "*men" aimed at correcting the article headline and deliberate misgendering occurs. News that presumably aligns with their way of thinking and they still can't help but have a bitter dig at others.

---

Having a daughter who has played football since 4 years old and is now over in the US playing, I actually cannot believe it has taken so long to bring into practice. This is nothing to do with Trans rights and it's all about player safety. She played in both boys and girls teams until 14 - at that stage and after 2 broken ankles - it was clear that is was no longer save to play against males. If recreational leagues want to do their own thing and everyone signs up to it then thats fine but competitive football should not allow it.

Interesting development:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I'm not sure if I posted on this thread about it but I watched a game last season with a trans female playing striker in a women's game and it wasn't comfortable viewing. She absolutely bullied a young CB for about 40 minutes, reducing her to tears before she was subbed off. It wasn't just a physical mismatch, which can happen in any football, it was someone with the muscular advantages of a grown man rag dolling a 16 year old girl.

I felt sorry for both parties tbh. The defender because she was clearly hurt physically and emotionally by the game and was placed in a very uncomfortable position. I also felt exceptionally sorry for the striker. She is a really nice person who loves football and just wants to play. I don't like to see barriers put in place of anyone playing the game but sometimes you have to reluctantly agree there is just cause.

**** knows what the solution is right enough.

---

Trans woman can play with other males. The only barrier she would have is the same as me ; not being good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

Trans woman can play with other males. The only barrier she would have is the same as me ; not being good enough.

---

I can see why that is an imperfect solution though. I reckon a males football changing room would be a difficult environment for a trans woman.

I think the ruling solves one problem in that it defines who can play women's football and that's good. It doesn't really solve the issue on what to do with trans footballers. To flip your suggestion that a trans woman should just play with males would it be acceptable for a trans man who has undergone testosterone and other hormone therapy and experienced significant muscle growth, facial hair growth etc etc to pitch up and play for a women's team because they are a woman in a biological sense?

I don't disagree with the current SFA decision but it still leaves issues and questions. 'Just play with whatever sex you were born' throws up plenty issues of it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I can see why that is an imperfect solution though. I reckon a males football changing room would be a difficult environment for a trans woman.

I think the ruling solves one problem in that it defines who can play women's football and that's good. It doesn't really solve the issue on what to do with trans footballers. To flip your suggestion that a trans woman should just play with males would it be acceptable for a trans man who has undergone testosterone and other hormone therapy and experienced significant muscle growth, facial hair growth etc etc to pitch up and play for a women's team because they are a woman in a biological sense?

I don't disagree with the current SFA decision but it still leaves issues and questions. 'Just play with whatever sex you were born' throws up plenty issues of it's own.

---

Depends on what you want to consider a "barrier" but, for me, at a high-level we're just talking about someone who wants society to treat them as a woman. They're being told "no" and being treated as a man. Now, I agree with the SFA here but that doesn't invalidate the feelings of the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

To flip your suggestion that a trans woman should just play with males would it be acceptable for a trans man who has undergone testosterone and other hormone therapy and experienced significant muscle growth, facial hair growth etc etc to pitch up and play for a women's team because they are a woman in a biological sense?

---

Of course not, that would be doping.

However, they may also be able to treat men’s football as an “open” category, and trans men’s medication as therapeutic, as Messi’s growth hormone treatment was, or some asthma medication is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

Depends on what you want to consider a "barrier" but, for me, at a high-level we're just talking about someone who wants society to treat them as a woman. They're being told "no" and being treated as a man. Now, I agree with the SFA here but that doesn't invalidate the feelings of the individual.

---

Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Society, laws and rules tend to favour what's perceived as the common good and serve the broad majority. When we are drilling down into what affects a very small minority of people (0.4 % of people identified as trans in the census) and then start twisting and turning convoluted scenarios, there will always be individuals and situations that arise where folk lose out or perceive disadvantage.

My gay cousin is a trans man, bearded, deep voice and he has asked me which toilet he should be using. I didn't ask if he had a cock, but would imagine common sense dictates he used male facilities.

Does it have to all be a big liberal bourgeois bitch fest, common sense and pragmatism would probably address most issues with zero fuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Society, laws and rules tend to favour what's perceived as the common good and serve the broad majority. When we are drilling down into what affects a very small minority of people (0.4 % of people identified as trans in the census) and then start twisting and turning convoluted scenarios, there will always be individuals and situations that arise where folk lose out or perceive disadvantage.

My gay cousin is a trans man, bearded, deep voice and he has asked me which toilet he should be using. I didn't ask if he had a cock, but would imagine common sense dictates he used male facilities.

Does it have to all be a big liberal bourgeois bitch fest, common sense and pragmatism would probably address most issues with zero fuss.

---

I've just come across this thread now that the Holy Ground has been opened up. I appreciate sensitivities around these issues, but can I ask what 'gay trans man' actually means? A trans man is a biological woman so I'm guessing a gay trans man is a lesbian? Otherwise how can they be gay? ie if they are attracted to men then they're hetrosexual.

On the wider debate around women's sport, of course no biological men should be involved. A man can never become a woman, that's a biological certainty. You carry that Y chromosome with you for life and having biological males in women's sport is not only unfair but often dangerous. Sporting bodies should have taken more decisive action on this earlier, rather than just in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The IOC have been the prime offenders here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

I've just come across this thread now that the Holy Ground has been opened up. I appreciate sensitivities around these issues, but can I ask what 'gay trans man' actually means? A trans man is a biological woman so I'm guessing a gay trans man is a lesbian? Otherwise how can they be gay? ie if they are attracted to men then they're hetrosexual.

On the wider debate around women's sport, of course no biological men should be involved. A man can never become a woman, that's a biological certainty. You carry that Y chromosome with you for life and having biological males in women's sport is not only unfair but often dangerous. Sporting bodies should have taken more decisive action on this earlier, rather than just in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The IOC have been the prime offenders here.

---

The trans man, who's youtube channel about his life in renovation of a rural cottage in Aberdeenshire describes himself as a gay man living in Aberdeenshire. He has undergone some surgery as part of his transition.

How you, or anyone else could understand what he has had to do is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

The trans man, who's youtube channel about his life in renovation of a rural cottage in Aberdeenshire describes himself as a gay man living in Aberdeenshire. He has undergone some surgery as part of his transition.

How you, or anyone else could understand what he has had to do is beyond me.

---

I don't understand. That was the whole point of my post. As I said, there's no intention to offend anyone, just a curiosity around something that seems bewildering to me.

Can you explain how being trans and gay works? eg If you're a trans woman (biological man) and you're also gay then logic would imply you'd be attracted to people of the same sex (ie men). And a gay trans man (biological woman) would presumably be attracted to women. You don't change sex by being trans, so a gay trans woman (biological man) who wants to sleep with other women surely can't be gay in the sense that they're attracted to the same sex. They're hetrosexual - and a gay woman being propositioned by a gay trans woman (biological man) makes no sense. She would regard that person as male.

It's little wonder that lesbians were among the most relieved by the common sense ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, which confirmed their freedom of association to meet as a single sex group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

I don't understand. That was the whole point of my post. As I said, there's no intention to offend anyone, just a curiosity around something that seems bewildering to me.

Can you explain how being trans and gay works? eg If you're a trans woman (biological man) and you're also gay then logic would imply you'd be attracted to people of the same sex (ie men). And a gay trans man (biological woman) would presumably be attracted to women. You don't change sex by being trans, so a gay trans woman (biological man) who wants to sleep with other women surely can't be gay in the sense that they're attracted to the same sex. They're hetrosexual - and a gay woman being propositioned by a gay trans woman (biological man) makes no sense. She would regard that person as male.

It's little wonder that lesbians were among the most relieved by the common sense ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, which confirmed their freedom of association to meet as a single sex group.

---

What I don't understand is how things like this seem to exercise the minds of straight people when it doesn't affect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

What I don't understand is how things like this seem to exercise the minds of straight people when it doesn't affect them.

---

When it is front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel, surely you understand why people would take an interest? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

When it is front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel, surely you understand why people would take an interest? :confused:

---

Today?

6 months ago maybe, but there's other, more important things to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

I've just come across this thread now that the Holy Ground has been opened up. I appreciate sensitivities around these issues, but can I ask what 'gay trans man' actually means? A trans man is a biological woman so I'm guessing a gay trans man is a lesbian? Otherwise how can they be gay? ie if they are attracted to men then they're hetrosexual.

On the wider debate around women's sport, of course no biological men should be involved. A man can never become a woman, that's a biological certainty. You carry that Y chromosome with you for life and having biological males in women's sport is not only unfair but often dangerous. Sporting bodies should have taken more decisive action on this earlier, rather than just in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The IOC have been the prime offenders here.

---

I'm not going to get involved in what I think is an incredibly polarised debate with no real world 'suits everyone' solutions. Bit I world encourage you to do a bit of reading about chromosomes. [emoji106]

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

When it is front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel, surely you understand why people would take an interest? :confused:

---

Why do you think it's/was front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

What I don't understand is how things like this seem to exercise the minds of straight people when it doesn't affect them.

---

Pretty much every single time you miss the point. It impacted women, that's 50% of the population. Some woman not so bothered others were, like the Nurse you think is a transphobe for wanting her legal rights upheld.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Today?

6 months ago maybe, but there's other, more important things to worry about.

---

The Supreme Court ruling was only in April. It will be a significant news issue for many months to come as its repercussions are addressed.

I think it's easy for men to shrug this off as being irrelevant to them, but for the women who fought so long and hard for common sense to prevail it's been far from an unimportant issue. Crazy that that they had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to defeat the Scottish government on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

What I don't understand is how things like this seem to exercise the minds of straight people when it doesn't affect them.

---

There are endless contemporary issues around the globe which may only directly 'affect' certain people, but that doesn't mean the rest can't take an interest in them.

I think a lot of people's eyes have been opened to the absurdities around this issue since Nicola Sturgeon brought gender self-ID front and centre (thankfully to the massive detriment of her career). The way seemingly rational people have been captivated (or, more accurately, become too cautious to speak out) by this ideology has been extraordinary to witness. Sturgeon herself was so beholden to this nonsense that she invented a third sex...men, women and rapists.

It's a relief to see common sense prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

There are endless contemporary issues around the globe which may only directly 'affect' certain people, but that doesn't mean the rest can't take an interest in them.

I think a lot of people's eyes have been opened to the absurdities around this issue since Nicola Sturgeon brought gender self-ID front and centre (thankfully to the massive detriment of her career). The way seemingly rational people have been captivated (or, more accurately, become too cautious to speak out) by this ideology has been extraordinary to witness. Sturgeon herself was so beholden to this nonsense that she invented a third sex...men, women and rapists.

It's a relief to see common sense prevail.

---

Wow!!

This being posted in pride month!!!

No thought for the minorities who have fought for their rights which have been removed by the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Wow!!

This being posted in pride month!!!

No thought for the minorities who have fought for their rights which have been removed by the court.

---

What legal rights were removed? The court clarified the existing law that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McSwanky

I'm not going to get involved in what I think is an incredibly polarised debate with no real world 'suits everyone' solutions. Bit I world encourage you to do a bit of reading about chromosomes. [emoji106]

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

---

Out if interest, what further reading would you say is required to know that your chromosomes are what help to determine the scientific certainty of your sex? That's my take on what I learned in biology ie you can change your physical appearance as much as you want but you can't change your sex. That's embedded in genes in every cell in your body.

FWIW when it comes to gay trans people my guess would be that trans women partner with fellow trans women and trans men partner with trans men ie they remain homosexuals and lesbians but have adopted a different gender. A trans woman partnering with a biological woman would not be a gay relationship.

The more concerning aspect of that issue is that many supposedly trans kids turn out simply to be gay but until recently were routinely prescribed puberty blockers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Why do you think it's/was front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Because it was big news, and still is.

Although that was April, should people forget about it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Out if interest, what further reading would you say is required to know that your chromosomes are what help to determine the scientific certainty of your sex? That's my take on what I learned in biology ie you can change your physical appearance as much as you want but you can't change your sex. That's embedded in genes in every cell in your body.

FWIW when it comes to gay trans people my guess would be that trans women partner with fellow trans women and trans men partner with trans men ie they remain homosexuals and lesbians but have adopted a different gender. A trans woman partnering with a biological woman would not be a gay relationship.

The more concerning aspect of that issue is that many supposedly trans kids turn out simply to be gay but until recently were routinely prescribed puberty blockers.

---

In 2024 about 600 children were prescribed puberty blockers. As they are used as a cancer treatment it may have been prescribed for that, although the figures aren't available. There are other stats which say it was less than 100.

There is no "routinely" about it and language like that is irresponsible, which is what led to this subject being such a hot tattie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Because it was big news, and still is.

Although that was April, should people forget about it now?

---

I think it's "big news" as it became a polarising subject on social media, which fermented and simmered away for a few years before the MSM gave it oxygen. Polarising subjects on social media attracts politicians and people who seek to divide people and those who just want to argue for the sake of it. That's those on the left and right.

Clicks = bucks.

If it were dealt with in a sober, non-political social issue no one on here would be in the slightest bit interested.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

There are endless contemporary issues around the globe which may only directly 'affect' certain people, but that doesn't mean the rest can't take an interest in them.

I think a lot of people's eyes have been opened to the absurdities around this issue since Nicola Sturgeon brought gender self-ID front and centre (thankfully to the massive detriment of her career). The way seemingly rational people have been captivated (or, more accurately, become too cautious to speak out) by this ideology has been extraordinary to witness. Sturgeon herself was so beholden to this nonsense that she invented a third sex...men, women and rapists.

It's a relief to see common sense prevail.

---

Massive detriment of her career. The trans bill was voted through by members of all parties at Scottish parliament. The never ending court case has been the main detriment of her career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I think it's "big news" as it became a polarising subject on social media, which fermented and simmered away for a few years before the MSM gave it oxygen. Polarising subjects on social media attracts politicians and people who seek to divide people and those who just want to argue for the sake of it. That's those on the left and right.

Clicks = bucks.

If it were dealt with in a sober, non-political social issue no one on here would be in the slightest bit interested.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

So you agree it is big news, no matter how it made it to the front pages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

So you agree it is big news, no matter how it made it to the front pages?

---

The media have made it into big news because of the strength of feeling a minority of people have on the subject. It stirs up hate which is what the media wants. I don't know anyone who gives a monkey's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

What legal rights were removed? The court clarified the existing law that's all.

---

Sorry for the delay but I've been working all day.

OK, the Supreme Court ruling clarified one thing regarding sex but removed protection from transgender people by forcing them use facilities that they are uncomfortable using. Transgender men are expected to revert to using ladies toilets where they will be challenged and transgender women are expected to revert to using gents toilets where they are could find themselves in conflict with men.

If not then I would like to know how transgender people can get their hard fought rights back to living a normal life without persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Sorry for the delay but I've been working all day.

OK, the Supreme Court ruling clarified one thing regarding sex but removed protection from transgender people by forcing them use facilities that they are uncomfortable using. Transgender men are expected to revert to using ladies toilets where they will be challenged and transgender women are expected to revert to using gents toilets where they are could find themselves in conflict with men.

If not then I would like to know how transgender people can get their hard fought rights back to living a normal life without persecution.

---

So if the woman also finds it uncomfortable changing next to a fully intact man, as in the case of the nurse you called a transphobe, then them feeling uncomfortable changing next to a man isn't as important?

Are you suggesting we need to make sure the man is more comfortable in the woman's changing room than the actual woman? The woman who feels uncomfortable is less important than the man's feelings?

A bit misogynist I would suggest? The woman just needs to get on with it as the feelings of the man are more important than her feelings of being uncomfortable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

So if the woman finds it uncomfortable changing next to a fully intact man, as in the case of the nurse you called a transphobe, then them feeling uncomfortable changing next to a man isn't as important?

Are you suggesting we need to make sure the man is more comfortable in the woman's changing room than the actual woman? The woman who feels uncomfortable is less important than the man's feelings?

A bit misogynist I would suggest? The woman just needs to get on with it as the feelings of the man are more important than her feelings of being uncomfortable?

---

You are referring to transgender women as men which is exactly the persecution I referring to!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You are referring to transgender women as men which is exactly the persecution I referring to!!!

---

You never answered the question or addressed the point. If the biological woman feels uncomfortable changing next to a fully intact male with a *****, as Dr Upton was, what should she do?

Her feelings of being uncomfortable aren't important? That's what you are saying? Even although she is the woman in the woman's changing room...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You are referring to transgender women as men which is exactly the persecution I referring to!!!

---

The Supreme Court made clear that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, as has always been the case under the Equality Act.

Under the terms of the same act, trans women retain every legal protection from discrimination that they have always enjoyed. Nothing has been taken away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I think it's "big news" as it became a polarising subject on social media, which fermented and simmered away for a few years before the MSM gave it oxygen. Polarising subjects on social media attracts politicians and people who seek to divide people and those who just want to argue for the sake of it. That's those on the left and right.

Clicks = bucks.

If it were dealt with in a sober, non-political social issue no one on here would be in the slightest bit interested.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

It's about a great deal more than a spat on social media. Women were losing their jobs for questioning the creep of biological men into protected spaces or daring to even imply (correctly) that transwomen are not women - and had those who went on to establish For Women Scotland not taken a closer look at the Gender Recognition Reform Bill than many MSPs clearly did, we'd now be living with all the absurdities of what self-id would have entailed. Credit is also due to the likes of Joanna Cherry, Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling for bringing their very public influence to bear.

One of the few sound moves the previous UK government made was to veto the bill. Since the Supreme Court brought some long overdue common sense to this saga, we've seen the cringeworthy row-back by Scottish Labour ('if we knew then what we know now'...WTF?!) and a hastiness from the present day SNP leadership to sweep Sturgeon's folly under the carpet. It's as though these people (and many others) have emerged from under a spell that prevented them being able to define what a woman is.

As I said, easy to claim this is a non-story because it doesn't impact on you, but for women it's as newsworthy an issue as any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Out if interest, what further reading would you say is required to know that your chromosomes are what help to determine the scientific certainty of your sex? That's my take on what I learned in biology ie you can change your physical appearance as much as you want but you can't change your sex. That's embedded in genes in every cell in your body.

---

I said I'm not going to get involved in the debate, and I stand by that. But I'm pretty certain I've had a conversation with you before, and IIRC you were able to use Google quite proficiently. I'm sure you can give it a go this time too.

Everyone likes issues to be black and white so they can form an opinion easily. For me, this one needs a bit more critical thinking.

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You are referring to transgender women as men which is exactly the persecution I referring to!!!

---

If they have a ***** then she/he is still a man, until the full operation then they should be using either male or an individual toilet/changing room, these facilities aren't there yet in many places.

Ricky Gervais tells a joke about this that sums up the situation. He talks about the new women we have, not the old fashioned ones with vaginas but the new ones with the beards and penises, he calls them his and in the joke he's told you cannot call them he/him/his anymore, so he apologises and and says her ***** and beard.


Why has it blanked out p e n i s ?? that not a bad word, it's the correct term.

Why can't we just have unisex accessible facilities and move on with our lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Why can't we just have unisex accessible facilities and move on with our lives?

---

How would a unisex changing room at a place of work look? Men and woman all getting undressed next to each other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

How would a unisex changing room at a place of work look? Men and woman all getting undressed next to each other?

---

Assuming individual cubicles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Assuming individual cubicles

---

The obvious solution and has worked in somewhere like the Commie pool for years, possibly decades now.

I suppose there are still issues. A lot of places aren't set up in such a way currently and there are costs involved in converting. A lot of the support for these shared spaces, anecdotally at least, seems to be from men (cis men for clarity). I think we forget our privilege when it comes to such things. We are the physically dominant person in those scenarios in such cases and when you look at the statistics around women who have been subject to sexual abuse or even 'just' unwanted advances then you can see why they may be more wary of sharing changing spaces with men. I posted some time ago about my experience in such a space. It was no real problem for me as such but the discomfort of the others in the room made me uncomfortable. There is a degree of arrogance to say 'well it doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother anyone so just get on with it'. Anyone who has ever played football or been to the gym knows there are guys who love to peacock about as well. Strolling about with their cock flapping about, leg up oh the seat whilst they dry their arse etc etc. Are we trusting them to modify their behaviour if there are women and kids present?

I found the nurse at the centre of that NHS tribunal objectionable in about every way possible. She seemed rude, deliberately misgendering the doctor in court was just spiteful imo and the rest of her politics were abhorrent (to me). In that instance I think she was right though. For me that comes back to the nuances of the whole debate and people looking beyond their own situation. I sympathise with both sides. I've never had any conflict about my sex so I don't feel in a position to say 'just use the changing room for your biological sex'. I don't understand the issues that can cause someone mentally. Equally I'm not a woman (or a man uncomfortable with such things) so just saying 'all changing rooms are now unisex so get on with it' isn't really on either.

I'm genuinely stumped as to how you please everyone here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Assuming individual cubicles

---

As eluded to in post above that has it's own issues and I think in places like a hospital it wouldn't be practical to build individual lockable cubicles when there are hundreds of people changing and showering a day I suspect. That's why we have single sex woman's and mens changing rooms as the norm.

I am also uncomfortable with men basically telling women how they should behave and feel, it's basically a "pipe down love, just get on with it, what's the problem" attitude and we would never dream of doing that about anything else.

As said above, not sure there's a solution that pleases everyone. Private unisex cubicles seem the closest though.

How about when that's not practical and you only have the traditionally built 2 communal areas then you have a dedicated sis-female space, and a unisex space.

Edit: in reality, this isn't really any different to the "biological sex" answer, but it does take away the labelling and forcing a trans-woman to use the mens space as they would just be using the unreserved unisex space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Massive detriment of her career. The trans bill was voted through by members of all parties at Scottish parliament. The never ending court case has been the main detriment of her career.

---

The media down here doesn’t cover it, but my take is that the SNP’s focus on this issue above all others during a cost of living crisis has seriously damaged their credibility way more than the stitch up about finances.

This is not an issue families are discussing over the breakfast table. Paying their bills is.

It gave the very strong impression that they were in the thrall to a small number of vocal activists and out of touch with ordinary people. Its a peril for those who have been in politics and power for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Assuming individual cubicles

---

I’ve never been in a communal changing room in a clothes shop. Maybe because men don’t need to try clothes on as much as women do but, really, why do women have to put up with communal changing rooms in clothes stores? It’s archaic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

The media down here doesn’t cover it, but my take is that the SNP’s focus on this issue above all others during a cost of living crisis has seriously damaged their credibility way more than the stitch up about finances.

This is not an issue families are discussing over the breakfast table. Paying their bills is.

It gave the very strong impression that they were in the thrall to a small number of vocal activists and out of touch with ordinary people. Its a peril for those who have been in politics and power for a long time.

---

I agree.

Only think I’d maybe add is that it’s an issue which has been cleverly weaponised by all sorts of right-leaning institutions as they know that their opponents are likely to tie themselves in knots over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

As eluded to in post above that has it's own issues and I think in places like a hospital it wouldn't be practical to build individual lockable cubicles when there are hundreds of people changing and showering a day I suspect. That's why we have single sex woman's and mens changing rooms as the norm.

I am also uncomfortable with men basically telling women how they should behave and feel, it's basically a "pipe down love, just get on with it, what's the problem" attitude and we would never dream of doing that about anything else.

---

I get why people worry about unisex facilities in places like hospitals, but there are ways to make them work without completely rebuilding everything. Many places have set up private stalls, separate sections, or designated areas that give everyone the privacy they need. There just hast to be a willingness to make things work and that is completely absent from some hard-line haters.

And about men telling women how they should feel—I completely agree that no one should dismiss women's concerns. But this isn’t about one group overruling another. It’s about making sure everyone, including trans people, has a safe and respectful space. Thoughtful solutions can make facilities work for everyone without ignoring real worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I get why people worry about unisex facilities in places like hospitals, but there are ways to make them work without completely rebuilding everything. Many places have set up private stalls, separate sections, or designated areas that give everyone the privacy they need. There just hast to be a willingness to make things work and that is completely absent from some hard-line haters.

And about men telling women how they should feel—I completely agree that no one should dismiss women's concerns. But this isn’t about one group overruling another. It’s about making sure everyone, including trans people, has a safe and respectful space. Thoughtful solutions can make facilities work for everyone without ignoring real worries.

---

Aren't you describing separate women's and mens space's above, which is exactly what separate changing rooms are?

What would you say to a woman nurse who doesn't want to get changed next to a fully intact male?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Aren't you describing separate women's and mens space's above, which is exactly what separate changing rooms are?

What would you say to a woman nurse who doesn't want to get changed next to a fully intact male?

---

I'd say her employer has an obligation to provide everyone with safe and discreet changing facilities, even if that means being imaginative or spending money, where there's a will there's a way.

EDIT

And no, I'm describing various solution that are available to provide everyone with the facilities they need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

So if the woman also finds it uncomfortable changing next to a fully intact man, as in the case of the nurse you called a transphobe, then them feeling uncomfortable changing next to a man isn't as important?

Are you suggesting we need to make sure the man is more comfortable in the woman's changing room than the actual woman? The woman who feels uncomfortable is less important than the man's feelings?

A bit misogynist I would suggest? The woman just needs to get on with it as the feelings of the man are more important than her feelings of being uncomfortable?

---

Remains all too true in general unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McSwanky

I said I'm not going to get involved in the debate, and I stand by that. But I'm pretty certain I've had a conversation with you before, and IIRC you were able to use Google quite proficiently. I'm sure you can give it a go this time too.

Everyone likes issues to be black and white so they can form an opinion easily. For me, this one needs a bit more critical thinking.

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

---

Yes, every likelihood as I remember being quite vocal on this thread a few years back when it was previously open to all 🙂

I was just interested by your response to somebody stating that your chromosomes can't be changed (irrespective of how that relates to this debate). I got the impression you were implying that's not the case. A quick Google search, as you suggested, confirms that your chromosomes are unalterable, being determined at the moment of conception.

I'm aware of the variations in patterns which may occur in intersex people, but that's not what I think was being referred to in relation to this issue. Being intersex doesn't make you trans and the overwhelming majority of trans women are biological men. They cannot change their sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yes, every likelihood as I remember being quite vocal on this thread a few years back when it was previously open to all [emoji846]

I was just interested by your response to somebody stating that your chromosomes can't be changed (irrespective of how that relates to this debate). I got the impression you were implying that's not the case. A quick Google search, as you suggested, confirms that your chromosomes are unalterable, being determined at the moment of conception.

I'm aware of the variations in patterns which may occur in intersex people, but that's not what I think was being referred to in relation to this issue. Being intersex doesn't make you trans and the overwhelming majority of trans women are biological men. They cannot change their sex.

---

No, I don't think you can change your chromosomes [emoji849]

The point about intersex people is where do they fit in in the black and white world people like to construct? Sex is nearly always determined by looking at your bits when you're born whilst the chromosomes could potentially 100% contradict that.

I guess all I'm saying is that it's a nuanced debate and anyone who thinks it's a black and white argument needs to think a little bit deeper. This does not, by the way, refer directly to you.

Twice I've tried to bow out of this argument and been sucked back in. Hopefully this time lucky.

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McSwanky

No, I don't think you can change your chromosomes [emoji849]

The point about intersex people is where do they fit in in the black and white world people like to construct? Sex is nearly always determined by looking at your bits when you're born whilst the chromosomes could potentially 100% contradict that.

I guess all I'm saying is that it's a nuanced debate and anyone who thinks it's a black and white argument needs to think a little bit deeper. This does not, by the way, refer directly to you.

Twice I've tried to bow out of this argument and been sucked back in. Hopefully this time lucky.

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

---

I think it's pretty close to black and white if we're looking at what the Supreme Court was deciding. Intersex traits are very varied in how they can present themselves and that isn't really relevant to the ruling.

In saying that, I think that until this (rightly) became such a high profile issue, many people didn't actually understand what transgender meant. I think a lot had some vague idea that it was a sort of 'between sexes' condition (ie a biological variation like intersex). Now that greater exposure has been given to the impact proposals like gender self-id would have (and already have) had on women's rights by giving greater automony to biological men, there's been an understandable kickback by many who were previously unaware, as well as a notable climbdown by former advocates of such proposals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibspur

It's about a great deal more than a spat on social media.

---

I wasn't going to bother answering your post but decided just to dsay this.

I never in any way described the issue in terms of it being a mere "spat" on social media.

If you have to strawman posts to get your, apparently very well practiced, points over knock yourself out.

As other people have decided on here it's not a subject which bares much fruit in terms of internet discussion, given how points can be misrepresented, ignored and glossed over.

You carry on though, you seem fascinated.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk