Pedro. Well done powering thru the downvotes. Many clearly did not read your earlier very clear comments.

Thank you Christopher.

I wish more people did.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Respect? 😂 Respect is EARNED, not handed out to the mentally disabled. Humour, on the other hand, can either be taken or left. If you can't laugh, scroll on... it's not directed at you.

'It's not directed at you' works for every racist joke ever.

And what exactly does racism have to do with a joke about gender-neutral tampons?

DANIEL GERMAN: calling trans people mentally disabled is hate speech. And just factually wrong. 🚩🚩🚩

Being told that gender identity does not eradicate the facts of biological sex is not trying to 'outlaw their existence', for crying out loud.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

That is not what's happening, you shriveled turnip. Trans folx know the importance of disclosing their assigned sex to medical purposes, for accurate treatment. Literally NO ONE else has a right to speculate or even comment, much less to control people with transphobic misinformation and godawful laws. And if you don't know all of this, you are at best ignorant, and at worst a p.o.s. who supports and enables anti-trans violence. Get educated or get bent.

Wanting a psychological feeling of 'identifying as' to be given more importance than biological reality absolutely is ideology. Feelings do not trump facts.

For f*ck sake, you can't just throw in a false analogy with the pogroms against the Jews and expect to make a valid point. It isn't a joke about Jews and pretending it is is just a disgusting appropriation of the suffering of millions of people, six million (at least) of which were systematically murdered. Have you no shame?

Tell me what all the documented violence against trans people, and all the legislation in countries like the USA and Canada directed to suppress them, represents. Your argument would have been made about anti-Jew sentiments in 1937. Some of us would like to get ahead of, and prevent pogroms and systematic persecution.

OK, so you're persisting with your disgusting analogy with the Jews. Shame on you, unless you can point me to the ghettos where governments are containing all the transgender people after evicting them, taking their businesses and property and forcibly removing them, shooting or imprisoning the ones who resist. Unless you can do that, kindly take a week or two to examine your perspective.

Work with me here. Did violent anti-Jewish behaviour start overnight and out of nowhere, or did it start with public acceptance of demonizing and ridiculing them? Not every small forest fire turns into an out-of-control wildfire, but we sure as heck try to put the small ones out, just in case.

If you want to get into the history of anti-Semitism you need to start a couple of millennia ago at least. You are making a false analogy and you know it. Trans people are not being denied the rights that everybody else has; if they are being denied anything it's rights that can only be had by removing rights from others, and that isn't how rights work.

Just for the discussion to be a bit fairer here... I personally don't think you should conflate struggles, I don't think bringing up Jews in 1930's Germany is a valueful comparasion. But UKGrandad, I want you to be aware that trans people, gay people and gender non-comforming people in general were seen by the Nazis as vermin too, and were too persecuted and executed? And neo-nazis these day say trans people are part of a "global jewish conspiracy" and deserve "equal treatment". So maybe keep that in mind when making an argument they are not the same. They are not the same for a whole lot of important reasons but trans people were also put in concentration camps. You don't even have to make any comparasion with jews because trans people were persecuted by the nazis anyway.

Grump never mentioned any other group than Jews in his 1937 analogy but that's by-the-by because nothing about being transgender in 2024 even begins to be comparable to the events of the Nazi period. It's a disgraceful comparison to make, and you've done the same with your own last sentence. You just cannot make any kind of comparison with what happened to transexuals and homosexuals under the Nazis. Nobody is throwing trans people into death camps, and it's an insult to every Jew, Roma, homosexual and all the others who were murdered by the Nazis to compare their ordeal with what amounts to little more than being told that biology trumps identity, and that as much as you are free to dress and act and call yourself whatever you wish, your biological sex cannot change so you are bound by the laws that govern your sex, not your gender identity. That isn't genocide: it isn't even persecution; it's having to live under the same rules that govern us all.

No you cannot meaningfully compare being transgender in 2024 to being a jew in the third reich. I am definitely agreeing with you there. With pointing out that the Nazis also put trans people in concentration camps, I was putting transphobia in a more accurate historical context to which it remains relevant today. As per my reply, neo-nazis and other fascists today reurgitate the same violent hatred for trans people. For all these years, trans people have been seen as "the enemy within", and this extends not only to fringe neo-nazi ideologies but far right ultranationalist influence on politics in general. You are making a very straw man simplification of trans struggles in saying the worst that happens is being "told that biology trumps identify" when the reality we are talking about is assault, threats, violence, and murders in form of hate crimes. Trans people are also being politically weaponized and very influential and powerful people are wrongfully putting blame on them, [cont.]

[cont. from other reply] and spreading dangerous conspiracy theories about trans people, like they are out to harm children for example, all this used as motivation to remove medical care and protections for trans people. It is all the hallmarks of a scapegoated minority group. If you really take minority hate seriously, you ought to take this seriously as well. While I fully agree you cannot draw direct comparasions, one thing that is true about 1930's Germany is jews, romani, slavs, gay and trans people, among others, were politicized and weaponized minorities for fascist ideological goals and that persists for _all these groups_ today. I also think you might live in a protected UK, perhaps middle class bubble where you aren't exposed to trans issues outside tabloid discussions (like, trans women in women's bathroom kind of stuff) while it's illegal to be trans in 13 countries and explicitly punishable by death in 3 of them. Just maybe keep that in mind.

And to the credit of Grump's point, legalized violence is indeed preceded by demonization, riduculing and the removal of legal protections. Before trans people were put in concentration camps in nazi germany, there were many years of demonization and built up hatred for trans people, books about trans people were banned and burned, and falsehoods were spread about them and there was this widespread idea they subverted real political progress. A lot of this can be seen today and should be taken seriously, I think the stupidest thing you can do is not recognize the patterns preceding political persecution. Downvote me for it all day.

Secondly, trans people are a vulnerable minority. Statistically they face higher rates of being victims of assault, violence, murder, poverty and homelessness. And psychologicaly, higher rates of depression, addiction, self harm and suicide. It is not fair to say "trans people are not being denied the rights everybody else has" because trans people as a group are not on equal footing and society should work to better protect vulnerable minorities. It is very ignorant to say trans peoples' rights come from taking away others' rights, like a negative thing, just because in some cases it is rightfully true in a way. For example, there is something called gay/trans panic defense in court, that protects people who've been violent against trans people from legal consequences, now there are laws being passed in the US to ban it in courts. So yes, they are removing the rights of transphobes, to protect trans people from violence and death, and that is a good thing. Yet in a lot of places in the world, these kind of things remain.

Demanding access to single-sex spaces meant for the opposite sex for males who identify as women will remove women's rights to single-sex spaces.

This comment has been deleted.

Can you just shut up? Your trump is showing.

What rights are trans people demanding that requires taking a right from someone else?

Are you really so naive?

No, they have no shame. Or sanity.

That escalated quickly 😆

You are using the usual TRA tactic of cherry picking fluid definitions, or at the very least making them up on the fly. Transgender does not equate to the desire to transition? You'll be getting kicked out of the Rainbow Club if you say that too loudly.

You are the one making up definitions on the fly. That transgender is an umbrella term that doesn't equate a desire to transition is a decades old consensus by now, and used in actual medical research and care. A transsexual person is a transgender person who want to transition. A non-binary person is also a transgender person, but might not have any clear gender direction to transition to, or any desire to. Trans does not mean transition, it is a latin prefix meaning beyond or the other side. I think you underestimate just how established these definition are. I am not concerned about any club, you are being cute for no reason.

And this is why it's impossible to debate transgender; the definitions and terminology constantly shift in order to support the argument at hand. Transgender as an umbrella term is a relatively recent development which not all trans people agree with. ' Celebrity' transwoman, Brianna Wu, for example, only a couple of weeks ago posted a tweet basically denying the validity of NB identities, calling it a recent fad that is nothing to do with transgender. Quote: "Then about five years ago, this non-binary trend exploded.Their main political tactic has been to conflate my medical condition with their identity even though there’s zero evidence this is the same thing. Rather than legitimate activism through the political process, they mostly just Hector and shame people that cannot magically intuit their pronouns". So if they can't agree on terminology amongst themselves is it any wonder that others are cynical about the whole thing? https://x.com/BriannaWu/status/1838536599119774138

Why do you think transgender is something that needs to be debated? There is no "argument at hand", you are very much tilting at windmills here. It's just a phenomena that some people do not identify with the gender they were assigned, it's not rocket surgery, there's no "agenda" to that. The rest is trying to best understand this phenomena and use as accurate terminology as possible to describe commonalities, and you might be confused by this as that tends to update as research progresses. This is the case of any field of study, you can take computer science for example and the most used words have shifted by a lot just over the last two decades. This is to have generalized terminology, of course not all people it is meant to cover will agree with it or feel comfortable with it. It strikes me as peculiar, that you just a moment ago accused me of cherry picking and you are providing me with Brianna Wu's quote here as if that would meaningfully support your argument. [cont.]

[cont.] Brianna is misguided or at least misinformed in what she is talking about, non-binary gender identities have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Sometimes in form of ethnic and cultural genders, you have Hijras, Fa'afafine, Muxe, Sworn Virgins, Kathoey, Xanith, Māhū and many others. Sometimes there existed non-binary genders outside established cultural norms. It's just since the 90's we've been talking about a gender binary, and thus, non-binary became a term that started being used to describe people who fall outside it. But that people fall outside it is nothing recent. Not that "recentness" is any good argument either, you shouldn't discard something for being novel if it holds importance to people. And furthermore, Brianna Wu is often set as an example of someone who has very controversial opinions on trans matters, someone who goes against the status quo, so she isn't a very typical example to bring up. [cont. again]

[cont. 2] It worries me that you say "they" can't agree in terminology "amongst themselves" and that's a good reason for people to be cynical "about the whole thing". Wu is in your mind part of a homogenous "they"; trans people; who should homogenously agree on things "amongst themselves". It's a red flag you are talking about trans people as a single mass, and that you feel that you have to state a reason to be cynical about "the whole thing". It makes me wonder if you might hold onto some transphobic dogmas, can you see why it makes me wonder that, based on that? Let me ask, why do you care about trans people? Like what makes you care?

What makes me care? First, as a lifelong supporter of and advocate for women's rights, I care that their hard-won rights are being stripped back as they are forced to accommodate men who identify as women in their single-sex safe spaces, associations and sports. Second, until my wife's health deteriorated to a state that required me to become a full-time carer for her we were foster carers and as such advocates for the safety and protection of vulnerable children. Seeing such children exploited in the name of gender ideology angers me. Seeing the uproar from trans advocacy groups over such things as the Cass report, their absolute rejection of scientific and medical knowledge; their insistence of continuing with the large-scale, completely uncontrolled experiment of transitioning vulnerable children with medical interventions that cause permanent damage to the bodies of those children - that angers me. Third; as the father of a lesbian daughter who, along with her wife, (cont)

(cont) has faced increasing hatred from men identifying as lesbians who have forced their way into the groups and places where my daughter once felt safe angers me. To hear of her being called an evil bigot for refusing to believe that men can be lesbians is astonishing. I don't have transphobic dogmas; it isn't the people I object to, it's the ideology behind the movement; it's the Lysenko-esque replacement of established science in favour of ideology; it's the ongoing litany of hate towards anybody who dare speak against or even question the ideology; it's the institutional capture that is pushing the rights of women and children back in favour of an ideological movement that is, at root, (cont)

This comment has been deleted.

You're saying you don't hold transphobic dogmas but mischarecterizing trans women as "men identifying as women" is textbook transphobia, let's call it for what it is so we can move on. You are attempting to justify this transphobia by claiming to care about a number of things. For instance, you bring up a rejection of scientific and medical knowledge. Should I need to remind you that you are the one who rejected conmonplace scientific definitions of transgender and transsexual? [cont.]

[cont. 1] On the topic of science, you bring up biological factualness. Here's a pop quiz: What biologically determines whether someone is a man or a woman? Is it endocrinological sex, gonadal sex, chromosomal sex, epigenetic sex, morphological sex, immunological sex, SRY gene presence, dimorphic brain structures, internal reproductive organs, hormonal sensitivity? In this context, I can confidently say I know what I am talking about regarding biology, having studied it, can you? If you wanna talk biology we can talk biology. Or did you just bring up science to have a crutch for your pre-conceived ideas about trans people? [cont.]

[cont. 2] Then you say you care about lesbians. But that's somehow missing how fundamental trans women have been for lesbianism and lesbian liberation. Do the names Sylvia Riviera, Gay Liberation Front, Stonewall Inn, Julia Serano, Lesile Feinberg, Sandy Stone, Kate Bornstein, Beth Elliot - ring any bells? How about all the historically prominent lesbians who've had and have transgender partners? Are you actually invested in gay liberation or did you perhaps bring up lesbianism to, again, have a crutch for your pre-conceived ideas about trans people? [cont.]

[cont. 3] You say you care about the safety of children, but while the bulk mass of trans politics is invested in the staggering suicide statistics within trans youth, you focus your energy on semantical hangups and ideological accusations. On the Brianna Wu's and having been called a Nazi. I don't doubt you care about children, but does it only mean certain children? Do you think, maybe, you brought up the safety of children - to have a crutch for your pre-conveived ideas about trans people? [cont.]

[cont. 4] Finally, as I think there is not much more to be said here. It's very telling that minority hate is thinly veiled as legitimate concern, when the entire pivot is on the question of access to public and private spaces. Historically, this is one of the most common patterns seen in minority hate. When people want to demonize a group, they shift the focus away from real social progress like decreasing mortality rates, and move it to discussions about spaces and how these spaces are "invaded". You can think of the historical examples yourself. I am not invalidating debate on whether trans people should be able to go to their bathroom of choice, or saying I agree with one or the other - the point is when all the focus pivots on a group's access to spaces, chances are your intentions are more rooted in minority hate than legitimate concern. Or in any case has the same effect. Please reflect on this and have a nice day!

Transgender - identifying as the opposite to one's biological sex. NB/GN - Identifying as not having a gender. Different things, sweetcheeks.

Source that's not your own mansplained definition? I'll wait. There's nothing in the medical or everyday understanding that treats gender fluid/non-binary/neutral as largely distinct from the broader trans umbrella, since it all has to do with TRANSition from assigned birth gender. It's in the f***ing name, you dense cabbage.

Nope. There is no such thing as 'the trans umbrella'. That's a rhetorical device encompassing many disparate conditions and ways of identifying. If these things weren't distinctly different then the letter salad would end at 'T'. The NB/GN identities require no transition, just a statement of rejection of a sex binary. They are in no way connected to transgender, an ideology that reinforces a binary through identifying as one or the other sex. So, no, transgender does not include NB; it would be oxymoronic to claim otherwise, you withered cauliflower (if we're trading vegetable-based insults).

Go home Grandad, you're an embarrassment

Try presenting an argument instead of childish insults.

I have presented an argument, you haven't replied

Reply posted just now. I'm on UK time, your posts were around 3am here.