SKS/Rosie Duffield

[Wiseman_Vaughn]

This is an odd one and I suspect not as clear cut as it first looks.

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix"

I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't understand the debate surrounding Trans people's rights and beliefs but surely, science is science. What does everybody think?

Cervix

 

[Ferrosol]

This is an odd one and I suspect not as clear cut as it first looks.

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix"

I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't understand the debate surrounding Trans people's rights and beliefs but surely, science is science. What does everybody think?

Cervix

Bigots be bigots and it's just the gay panic of the 1980's being re-fashioned for the modern era.

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

Bigots be bigots and it's just the gay panic of the 1980's being re-fashioned for the modern era.

It's that simple?

I think the whole debate is more nuanced than that for those who are interested in this beyond a few soundbites. For me personally it's an issue I have zero knowledge on and I think this issue in terms of debate is possibly the most complex to navigate. I think the usually smart James O'brien also has acknowledged that this is the one topic where usual logic of fairness doesn't provide clarity.

One of our senior executives is (in her words) "a butch lesbian who suffered terribly they the 80s and does have a huge affinity to the trans rights movement" but she tells me there is a growing concern about how the 'all women are women' philosophy actually promotes misogyny.

I think the one thing that this topic isn't, is simple.

On one hand you have a group of the most marginalised communities in the country and on the other a group of people who are regularly abused and killed by their male counterparts.

Add to this the fact the the language that is used in the debate is by its very nature, emotive and its a heady mix

 

[newusername]

This is an odd one and I suspect not as clear cut as it first looks.

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix"

I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't understand the debate surrounding Trans people's rights and beliefs but surely, science is science. What does everybody think?

Cervix

As obviously some men have a cervix as well.

Gender is societal construct, we should all just move beyond that & let people be people.

 

[HarryVegas]

As an outsider on this subject, I just read, keep my mouth shut and try to learn. But the one thing I will say is that the whole tone of the debate seems to me to be absolutely toxic. Things like access to public toilet facilities are publicly 'debated' with such viciousness I stop reading. The tone is absolutely awful.

 

[Dybuk]

The only thing I'd say on the subject is that I would hate to be trans and have to risk going into a male public toilet.

 

[Wiseman_Vaughn]

This is the problem - nobody has a proper understanding of this. Surely open and honest discussion is needed so that people can understand??????

 

[Caesium137]

The only thing I'd say on the subject is that I would hate to be trans and have to risk going into a male public toilet.

I'm a whisker under six foot, 17 stone and an ex-military lad and I hate going in male public toilets!

 

[Caesium137]

I don't have any issue with anyone being what they want or calling themselves what they want, but find the refuting of biological facts a bit bizarre. I always fall back to 'believe the science' whether that is in engineering control measures with work, a vaccine say, or what something is 'biologically' by chromosome, or working reproductive organs etc.

I'm happy to get on with stuff, make all public conveniences single cubicles would help a bit maybe? But ex-blokes shouldn't be getting put in womens prisons and then raping someone, or winning medals in sporting competitions too for that matter.

If you have right to choose to be a woman, shouldn't natural born women have the right to choose not to be imprisoned with you or to compete against you in physical contests?

I'm probably sounding out of touch / a loon but that isn't my intention.

 

[Wiseman_Vaughn]

I don't have any issue with anyone being what they want or calling themselves what they want, but find the refuting of biological facts a bit bizarre. I always fall back to 'believe the science' whether that is in engineering control measures with work, a vaccine say or what something is biologically by chromosome, or working reproductive organs etc.

I'm happy to get on with stuff, make all public conveniences single cubicles would help a bit maybe? But ex-blokes shouldn't be getting put in womens prisons and then raping someone, or winning medals in sporting competitions too for that matter.

If you have right to choose to be a woman, shouldn't natural born women have the right to choose not to be imprisoned with you or to compete against you in physical contests?

I'm probably sounding out of touch / a loon but that isn't my intention.

I too believe in live and let live. I have no problem with people identifying with whatever takes their fancy but it seems to me that this debate makes one either a bigot or a science denier.

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

As an outsider on this subject, I just read, keep my mouth shut and try to learn. But the one thing I will say is that the whole tone of the debate seems to me to be absolutely toxic. Things like access to public toilet facilities are publicly 'debated' with such viciousness I stop reading. The tone is absolutely awful.

Retweet

 

[BoroPhil]

I'm not sure if it is transphobic and it certainly is a debate that can easily get out of control, but it does seem to me that it is factually incorrect to say "only women have a cervix" - even if you take trans people out of it, what about inter-sex people who may well have female body parts but feel and live as a male (or as neither gender). I don't think it is right to call them a woman?

I don't see why the definition of 'people with a cervix' can't be extended without erasing the identify of women.

 

[Littlejimmy]

As an outsider on this subject, I just read, keep my mouth shut and try to learn. But the one thing I will say is that the whole tone of the debate seems to me to be absolutely toxic. Things like access to public toilet facilities are publicly 'debated' with such viciousness I stop reading. The tone is absolutely awful.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Ferrosol]

It's quite simple either you accept that someone is a woman if they say they are (and the state of their genitals is between them and their doctor and/or them and their sexual partners of choice) or you enforce your definition of what makes a real woman on the world. And good luck coming up with a definition that doesn't exclude a significant fraction of Cis woman. It's not really much more complicated than that.

 

[NZBoro1]

This is an odd one and I suspect not as clear cut as it first looks.

"Sir Keir Starmer says it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix"

I'll hold my hands up and admit that I don't understand the debate surrounding Trans people's rights and beliefs but surely, science is science. What does everybody think?

Cervix

As the father of a trans female, its a nightmare for them. They are not accepted by the hard feminists (JK Rowling etc) who think that they are just blokes who are looking to gain an advantage, or by other parts of society (conversion therapies etc). Its an absolute minefield, and the mental strength that she and others need to even go out is phenomenal.
I didn't realise how phobic and toxic some parts of society could be until she transitioned. Its absolutely ridiculous. Hopefully, this new generation can be more accepting, but I have my doubts.

 

[NZBoro1]

I don't have any issue with anyone being what they want or calling themselves what they want, but find the refuting of biological facts a bit bizarre. I always fall back to 'believe the science' whether that is in engineering control measures with work, a vaccine say, or what something is 'biologically' by chromosome, or working reproductive organs etc.

I'm happy to get on with stuff, make all public conveniences single cubicles would help a bit maybe? But ex-blokes shouldn't be getting put in womens prisons and then raping someone, or winning medals in sporting competitions too for that matter.

If you have right to choose to be a woman, shouldn't natural born women have the right to choose not to be imprisoned with you or to compete against you in physical contests?

I'm probably sounding out of touch / a loon but that isn't my intention.

So are you then saying that a trans female, who identifies as female, can't be locked up with other females because they were initially born with male genitals, where do we then put them. In a male prison? Thats going to work.
What about a trans female who suffers from physical and mental abuse from their male partner in a relationship? What happens to them. Are they not allowed to use the same facilities?
You can say 'i follow the science', but isn't mental health a science also? Identifying as another gender to the one that you are born with takes serious courage, I can't even begin to imagine what my daughter felt like going through puberty, when all of a sudden you just do not feel right, but can't put your finger on it.
We saw a real change in their personality, when they left home they ended up in hospital through drinking too much, finished and started university courses 2 or 3 times, and just generally drifted. Then, in 2016, during a holiday in the UK, she came out and told us. It was like a weight had been lifted from her shoulders. Over time, she returned the person she was before puberty, and we could see the same fun loving, easy going person that she was.
She is very involved in rainbow issues and rights here, has her own blog thingy, you tube vid etc. and I'm immensely proud of how she has turned out.

 

[Wiseman_Vaughn]

Thanks for the honest replies everyone.

 

[SuperStu]

but surely, science is science.

Humans are extremely complex biological machines. I don't see why anyone would think it's somehow anti science to accept that a person can be born with one set of genitals and identify as something else.

there is a growing concern about how the 'all women are women' philosophy actually promotes misogyny.

The only thing I'd say on the subject is that I would hate to be trans and have to risk going into a male public toilet.

But ex-blokes shouldn't be getting put in womens prisons and then raping someone, or winning medals in sporting competitions too for that matter.

I don't want to call any of you transphobic but a lot of the time when people find themselves saying they have concerns or its complicated or whatever, they completely erase female to male trans people. So if you find yourself arguing that trans women shouldn't be in women's prisons or women's toilets or wherever else, you're also saying trans men should be. I think that would cause as many, if not more problems.

On the thread title Rosie Duffield is certainly transphobic. I'm not sure if she always was or what, but she's become obsessed over the last few years and she's getting worse the longer it goes on. She's in a sort of feedback loop where she says something transphobic on twitter, gets a strong negative reaction from a lot of people, and she obviously comes back more hateful the next time. Last week she made a comment on the radio along the lines of "there are men in relationships with women calling themselves queer when they aren't" and she obviously meant trans men, but she's upset a load of bisexual men as well now with that.

Is Starmer transphobic? Not really sure but Duffields been making deliberately goading/offensive remarks on twitter for the whole time he's been leader and he hasn't done anything. Compare and contrast that to how quick Long Bailey was sacked or Corbyn was expelled. Is it because he approves of what she says or is it factional? Hard to say.

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

Humans are extremely complex biological machines. I don't see why anyone would think it's somehow anti science to accept that a person can be born with one set of genitals and identify as something else.





I don't want to call any of you transphobic but a lot of the time when people find themselves saying they have concerns or its complicated or whatever, they completely erase female to male trans people. So if you find yourself arguing that trans women shouldn't be in women's prisons or women's toilets or wherever else, you're also saying trans men should be. I think that would cause as many, if not more problems.

On the thread title Rosie Duffield is certainly transphobic. I'm not sure if she always was or what, but she's become obsessed over the last few years and she's getting worse the longer it goes on. She's in a sort of feedback loop where she says something transphobic on twitter, gets a strong negative reaction from a lot of people, and she obviously comes back more hateful the next time. Last week she made a comment on the radio along the lines of "there are men in relationships with women calling themselves queer when they aren't" and she obviously meant trans men, but she's upset a load of bisexual men as well now with that.

Is Starmer transphobic? Not really sure but Duffields been making deliberately goading/offensive remarks on twitter for the whole time he's been leader and he hasn't done anything. Compare and contrast that to how quick Long Bailey was sacked or Corbyn was expelled. Is it because he approves of what she says or is it factional? Hard to say.

I think I've been clear that I can't debate the area purposefully without the knowledge, which I simply don't have.

My point really is that the topic isn't a simple one and the discussions on both sides at the moment are usually played out by both of the more extreme ends of the respective 'sides' (for want of a better word)

The language used is often, by its nature emotive and that its a complex area of debate which is acknowledged by some of the people I usually find good at being able to explain these things in a way that I understand.

 

[Cambsred]

I think I've been clear that I can't debate the area purposefully without the knowledge, which I simply don't have.

My point really is that the topic isn't a simple one and the discussions on both sides at the moment are usually played out by both of the more extreme ends of the respective 'sides' (for want of a better word)

The language used is often, by its nature emotive and that its a complex area of debate which is acknowledged by some of the people I usually find good at being able to explain these things in a way that I understand.

The complexity is immense. It is one of many complex, nuanced areas that I am not sure there is an easy way to reconcile.

I'm all for equality and understanding and feel I am very open minded, but every way you look there is the potential pitfall or risk that increasing equality for one group hinders or directly impacts the equality for another.

Twitter and the world we live in doesnt have time for nuance or balanced discussion, and my own personal exposure to this is so limited as to have no idea where to start. I'm a white, working class male. Most issues of equality and diversity have very little impact on me directly as I have never suffered and have little exposure to the world of prejudice/ bias/ suffering that other groups do.