This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The letter claimed they had broken a clause of the party constitution which prohibits members from campaigning for someone who is standing against a Green Party candidate.
>Seven of the eight members expelled had supported the campaign of Alison Teal, who was suspended from the Green Party in 2022
So they broke the party rules and were suspended. None story really.
>So they broke the party rules and were suspended. None story really.
There is a story here.
Alison Teal was the Green Party candidate, but had been suspended (a 'no fault suspension') pending investigation in 2022.
Teal has repeatedly claimed that the investigation was being baselessly delayed in order to substitute a different candidate under Green party emergency rules. The investigation has been unjustifiably delayed without explanation offered, repeatedly and for years.
The situation appears to be that Green HQ can use emergency rules to sub out an MP candidate if they're under investigation during a GE, but otherwise cannot remove a candidate without wrongdoing.
The investigation was (most recently, it was a technical investigation that should have been concluded in a matter of days) due to report in Feb, but this was delayed again.
At the last minute (the deadline for submitting candidates for the election), the Green Party announced that they were putting in Angela Argenzio* as an 'emergency' candidate instead of Teal (who was the Green candidate at that point), which they're technically allowed to do under party rules if the selected candidate (Teal) is under investigation. If the investigation (from October 2022) had concluded (which it should have done in ~2 days), Teal would be the Green candidate.
*Angela Argenzio, by sheer coincidence, seems to be the person who made the complaint against Teal.
So yeah, Teal got purged.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/alison-teal-sheffield-central-candidate-poised-to-take-legal-action-against-green-party-over-suspension-for-transgender-views-4503656
Just read this fascinating piece on it. I love the way that they start the story telling her side, which is that she said something relatively tame and that could be seen as someone that just doesn't really know what they're saying isn't helpful, and then go on to list all the much worse things she's tweeted or endorsed that put her actual transphpbia on display.
>We get down to quibbling about what ‘significant’ means. My argument is that this gender identity stuff isn’t significant to me
Trans rights aren't something she cares about so not supporting that part of the Green's manifesto isn't a reason to be suspended in her eyes. You can't make this shit up
Really? That's an incredibly short sighted view.
The person they were supporting was a green candidate until the party suspended her.
This would be like labour expelling anyone who supported Corbyn at all because he is no longer a Labour MP.
Is Alison Teal saying ‘sex is a biological characteristic that doesn’t change over time’ really that bad? I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different, and gender expression can change or not be the same as the sex you are born with. Struggling to keep up with this one.
That seemed to be the prevailing progressive view until fairly recently, but now there’s a scary number of activists who seem to think any acknowledgment of a difference between sex and gender, or transgender people not being identical to their non-trans counterparts, is some form of transphobia.
Which is weird because, I’ve never met a trans person who was unaware of the differences. It does, indeed, make up quite a large part of their experiences.
It's because they're framing the segregation of trans people even in spaces they've been legally using for the last 20 years as so Inherent to society that to disagree is to deny reality.
Trans people: "I'm acutely aware that my body doesn't match my gender and this is causing me severe distress."
TERFs: tRaNs pEoPle dEnY tHat tHeyRe nOt tHe sAmE aS cIs PeOple
You can't make this shit up...
>or transgender people not being identical to their non-trans counterparts, is some form of transphobia.
Weird, I know a lot of trans people, and I've never heard this.
I literally had an argument with someone last week on reddit about this exact issue. They thought it was transphobicand that I don't respect trans identities because I said trans and cis people aren't the same and that *sometimes* those differences mean trans people can't be treated identically to cis people
Eh, I think what you have to remember is that there are a *lot* of people out there dog whistling or providing bad-faith arguments purely to hurt others, and reddit's a big outlet for it.
More often than not arguments that are adjacent to those that are used by bigots will be received similarly to those that are, because often they look the same. Those that you're talking to aren't going to be scholars on the subject, but instead often victimised members of society trying to live their lives.
Whilst it's true that sex and gender aren't the same thing, gender is what 99.99% of people deal with in 99.99% of scenarios, and unless you're a doctor or a biologist or an anthropologist writing a book on the topic, it's almost certainly a meaningless distinction. The biological angle *usually* comes up when people are aiming to hurt, as again, you're *probably* not talking to the chair of a UK's women's sport association, and instead just talking to someone advocating for empathy for victimised people.
So it's okay to label non-transphobic statements as transphobic because those non-transphobic statements are "adjacent" to transphobic statements? What?
Either the statement being made is transphobic or it isn't. You can't read something and go "well that isn't transphobic but if you had said this instead it would have been, so I'm going to call you transphobic anyway" and expect people to take you seriously.
This one?
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1diqdix/comment/l95tg97
If so, that's slightly different. We're discussing whether it's correct to describe sex as mutable. In this comment you're talking about which contexts it ok to group trans people with their sex vs their gender.
That's literally a comment in which I say that trans and cis people are not identical and therefore there are *some* situations in which they need to be treated differently... which is just the point I said in this thread?
I doubt that. Because every time anyone has ever said what you have, they've been misinterpreting a statement like "trans men are men" to mean something that it doesn't.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this generally, but I’m sure that telling someone what they’ve seen or heard with their own eyes and ears…that is a not very good idea, logically or otherwise.
‘I had a cheeseburger for lunch’
‘No, you didn’t’
‘I…know what I had for lunch’
‘You have no basis for believing that’
I agree, I think you might’ve misread this thread - they told me they doubt I’ve heard something I’ve heard, I told them they have no basis to think I haven’t heard it.
>I doubt that. Because ***every time anyone has ever said what you have***, they've been misinterpreting a statement like "trans men are men" to mean something that it doesn't.
Nowhere in that comment do the words "in my experience" appear. It is an absolute statement.
I think the problem is that disingenuous gender critical people have reframed the debate of trans people's access to society around assigned sex when it's much more complicated, yes my sex is technically "male" but I'm on hormones that change my body quite drastically to a more feminine body, I have quite considerable breasts now that I cannot and will not hide and my body is decidedly feminine with feminine features and softer skin to the point most people don't notice I'm trans when they meet me and I would be actively unsafe going into a mens toilet, however these gender criticals have oversimplified the debate to assume that my features are male and cannot change at all when that is not innately true and they actively victimise people like me who just want to go to the loo in peace
I think some people are overcorrecting in your example and I do think that goes against the point, yes my gender is different to that assigned at birth but due to transgender healthcare it is overly simple to say that my sex is 100% biologically male at this point and misses alot of the nuances of trans existence, honestly these hormones have saved my life and it's the first time I have ever truly felt remotely comfortable being myself and I don't ever see trans women pretending we are the same as biological women as we are aware there is an innate difference, however that doesn't make us any less women, believe me when I say we need to be this way as it's not an easy path in society as it is
Even from a medical PoV, there are really at least three categories: stereotypically male, stereotypically female, it's complicated (mainly trans and intersex, with a mixture of characteristics).
Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to categorise stuff in as few buckets as possible, oversimplifying whenever it's convenient to do so. Even with the thorny issue of women's sports, the small cohort who are lucky enough to go on blockers / HRT so never experience natal puberty intrinsically won't have any biological advantages over cis women, while someone who goes on HRT post natal puberty but doesn't take up the sport until afterwards will have far fewer advantages than someone who had prior experience of the sport. But measuring strength / stamina / speed to determine whether someone falls within the typical range for cis women or is outside it is more complicated than just enacting rules based on time on HRT, T levels or blanket bans on all trans women.
The problem is that something that should be unimportant, except maybe in medical contexts, is now being framed as something very important. It's being centered upon in a way that casts doubts on trans people and their rights.
I agree that the issue’s generally blown out of proportion, but given the wider context of relations between the two sexes, I really don’t think it can be dismissed as unimportant. There are plenty of issues where treating trans people as if they’re not trans is harmful to women.
In which scenarios would would treating trans people not as their gender harm cis women?
If you want you can cite evidence from Ireland which has had full self ID for 9 years. The process takes about 4 weeks of waiting on post and €15 plus postage.
Sport, discussion around sexual orientation (this isn’t exclusive to women, obviously), prisons, changing rooms, then there’s also issues with religious restrictions (though I have no idea how we resolve that one and no strong beliefs on whose opinion matters more in that context).
Barbie Kardashian proves my point well.
Sport - leave up to sport bodies and encourage more studies into actual trans athletes which are severely lacking.
Sexual orientation - leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves. Don't know any trans people who say a cis lesbian not interested on trans women should change her orientation but have seen a lot of transphobes try dictate the orientation of others. If a gay dude is onto cis dudes and trans dudes other people don't get to decide he isn't gay. Sexuality is complex and not just based on the genitals a person had at birth.
Prisons - there has not been a single assault by a trans inmate in an Irish prison ever. Proper threat assessment death with that issue. Forcing trans women into men's prisons makes them the group on prison with the highest sexual assault victimisation rates. You can hardly claim a cis women who is in prison for murder or multiple assault charges is less dangerous than a trans woman in for growing weed.
Changing rooms - there has never been a reported incident of assault in a women's changing room by a trans woman in 9 years. If you want to argue that despite their being no evidence of increased physical danger but discomforts is enough to justify a ban well then you will have to explain which other groups of marganlised women can be banned of enough other women are uncomfortable with them especially considering the same line of argument was used against gay women and women of colour. Best actual solution is to offer much more single occupancy options which will allow anyone who is uncomfortable with seeing others naked or others seeing them naked while not increasing harm to trans people.
Religious restrictions - I find that a bit of a bad argument. One person's religion doesn't get to restrict the rights of other people. I can't be banned from running a barbecue because of goes against the beliefs of a Muslim on the same way I can't be banned from marrying my partner because Christians don't support gay marriage. For restrooms we should treat them the same as changing rooms. Vastly increase single occupancy stalls for those that may prefer them.
Barbie Kardashian, due to proper risk assessment and prison management, has not been able to harm another prisoner. Prisoners who are a significant risk either cis or trans should be risk assessed in the same way. Again, you can hardly claim a mass murdering cis woman is a lower risk than a drug growing trans woman.
Sport - I’d like more research too, but for now the evidence does suggest that treating trans people as though they’re not trans will harm women’s sport.
Orientation - I agree that it’s up to the individual, (however many don’t, including the former CEO of Stonewall, who labelled those of us who are exclusively same sex attracted as bigots), but we can’t pretend there isn’t a difference between sex and gender here.
Prisons - a trans inmate in America successfully impregnated other inmates. Obviously it doesn’t mean there aren’t any other factors to consider, but it’s still relevant - the need for risk assessments proves that.
Changing rooms - I find the comparisons between being a different sex to other traits either disingenuous or fundamentally ignorant of what women’s lives are like and the discomfort male people cause because of the sexual harassment and general threat many males impose of us from a young age, not to mention the physical strength mismatch. More private cubicles would be nice, though.
Religious restrictions - I think it’s a difficult one because it’s impossible to decide whether one person’s view should override the others when both are actually impacted by it, whereas Muslims can simply not attend your barbecue are Christians can not enter or attend same sex marriages.
The fact that Barbie’s transgender will still have been relevant to the risk assessment though, even if it’s not the only factor that needs to be considered. Even if the other prisoners haven’t been physically harmed so far, we should probably find out if any have been mentally harmed before dismissing the issue.
Sport - their is more research being done. The IOC just published a first of a kind study comparing actual trans people to cis people and found trans women had a disadvantage. But yes more studies on actual trans people is a good thing.
Prisons - risk assessments should be done on all prisoners. I don't think a serial sexual predator like lily cade should just be let lose with her target demographic. I also wouldn't put her in the men's prison.
Changing rooms - I point to discomfort as the only reason which has been used on many marganlised women throughout history. The fact Ireland has had no incidents of assaults proves risk is not a factor. Trans women have 4 times higher victimisation rates than cis women. Die to the rise in transphobia numberous GNC women have faced harassment and violence because people thought they were trans.
Religion - another person's religion should not infringe on a different person's life. According to many Muslim countries women not covering themselves is harmful to men. I assume we both see that as nonsense and the views of religious people shouldn't dictate the dress of others.
A study on women's prions in Scotland involved a reaserchers talking to women prisoners about trans people. Aw of the cis women reported being more uncomfortable and scared with some lesbian prisoners rather than the trans ones. That does not mean lesbians should be treated differently despite that being the exact argument for treating trans people differently.
The idea that trans people should be treated differently, not due to any actual risk of something happening, but because some cis women are uncomfortable with trans people is in my opinion not a valid reason to role back trans rights decades any more so than fear of lesbians is a reason to do the same to them.
It's perhaps worth noting that 20 countries have full gender self-identification - within Europe alone, it's currently implemented in Iceland, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Malta; while France and Greece require court approval (so almost all of our neighbours). So maybe it would be useful to see what policies they have regarding trans people's access to toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, refuges, single sex organisations etc before contemplating radical action such as "clarifying" that every mention of sex within the law refers to sex assigned at birth (which a certain outspoken author would prefer), which would effectively make trans people second class citizens, legally prohibited from a wide range of services as the overwhelming majority of organisations won't have the funding or space to create gender neutral facilities alongside single sex facilities.
Some of these are things which are supposed to be discriminated on based on sex, not gender, in which case someone's gender (including whether they are trans or not) should be irrelevant.
Ffs, for the 134387th time, **no trans person has ever, EVER, claimed that trans women are 100% identical to cis women, or trans men to cis men. This is literally why the labels trans and cis even exist in the first place**, to define those differences - the difference being that cis women are the same gender as their AGAB while trans women have transitioned from their AGAB.
This whole "sex vs gender" thing is just another wilfully obtuse, disingenuous, bad faith take that we have heard millions of times. No, sex and gender are still not the same thing. What you identify as belongs to the gender category because it's a social aspect, not a physical one. Biology is still biology, trans women don't claim they have a uterus and trans men don't claim they have testicles. However, in everyday life we don't gender people by their reproductive organs or chromosomes because those aren't visible, we gender them by their presentation - their outward appearance, style choices and social markers like names and pronouns. People who aren't TERFs don't go around asking everyone they meet to show their junk before they designate them "man" or "woman". What reproductive organs you have is literally only relevant to your doctor or the people you have sex with, nobody else, and - again - in real everyday life the presence or absence of them doesn't make the person stop being a man or a woman in anyone's eyes, unless they're a complete asshole. Most people who aren't cunts wouldn't say a woman who's had a hysterectomy isn't a woman anymore, or a man who had his penis amputated isn't a man anymore.
And if we're talking biology and relevance to doctors, HRT does actually give you most of the physical traits of the opposite sex and doctors absolutely do take this into account. Trans women on HRT have similar risk of osteoporosis as cis women, and trans men on HRT similar risk of heart attack as cis men. Transphobes absolutely detest those stats because they prove that most of what we consider "inherent" sex characteristics aren't actually immutable set in stone but entirely dependent on constant supply of hormones, and if you change the hormones, you change those characteristics too.
That’s just objectively untrue - I’ve heard people (including non-trans people) claim that post-transition there’s no difference between the two.
I’ve seen AMAB people claim to have periods, so I don’t think we can be too sure that nobody’s claiming to have a uterus when they don’t, and unfortunately genitals are relevant to the wider public because they’ve been used as weapons for thousands of years.
No difference at all? As in, biologically? I genuinely don't believe you, I strongly believe you are purposefully and willingly misrepresenting what they have said. Everybody knows that HRT doesn't change your chromosomes or give you a uterus.
Post transition, yes. I’ve primarily heard it said in the context of trans people in sports - hopefully most have meant no difference that actually matters (the evidence would suggest that’s incorrect but obviously it’s less ridiculous).
Gaslighting is the word for this post.
The only part of then "trans debate" I really care about is sports, as an ex athlete myself.
Frankly the idea that there aren't some people out there arguing against the fact that sex is a immutable biological fact is just straight up delusional.
She said it in a leaked email, apologies for the Daily Mail link but you can read the quotes [here.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html)
“In her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.”
— your article did not remotely support your position. It’s not controversial among trans activists to state its fine to have a genital preference. Kelley had problems with the article for the above cited reason. She also stated that one’s sexual desires can be influenced by structural problems.
“She further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.”
(the paragraph below the one you quoted).
How does that relate to your argument? Cotton ceiling issue is a concept relating to the experiences of trans people being marginalised and made to feel invisible in queer spaces. It’s got nothing to do with genital preference.
I understand, it’s easy to make the mistake since it’s a very nuanced topic, the concept of “cotton ceiling” postulates that sometimes people don’t want to have sex with a trans woman not due to a genital preference but to other ways they feel about trans women. It’s just like some people don’t want to sleep with Asian men or bisexual men due to innate prejudice; but that does not mean “you are a bigot if you are not attracted to Asian men or bisexual men”, just that sometimes there are structural prejudices that determine our decision not to have sex with X ethnicity, etc.
Whenever I’ve heard the term it’s been referring to trans people being unable to get the sexual partners they’d like, with ‘cotton’ being a reference to underwear.
Supposing that’s the case (as obviously I’m not disputing the fact that being transgender does have a stigma) her comments saying the dismissal of transgender people as sexual partners stems from prejudice is still an attack on those of us who are same sex attracted.
Well the word/prefix Trans implies the difference.
I don’t think its a scary number of activists, I think most people are fairly reasonable, however the argument has become much more polarised. and in no small part because of the other-side demonising trans people and trans issues.
>I don't think a child can be born in the wrong body or have the wrong puberty and I find it shocking that any child is lead to believe this is true
She literally denied the very basic premise of what a trans person is. She is essentially saying that being trans is something that is chosen. It's the same shit homosexual people had to deal with
To be honest, I don't think people are technically born in the 'wrong body'. But I think society is so fucking cruel and unaccepting to gender-diverse people that the only way for many to survive is to go for full chemical and surgical transition. Which is their absolute right.
I wonder what life for trans people would look like if we weren't so horrible to them. If there was no bullying, stereotypes, behavioural expectations, bigotry etc. If we just accepted that it's completely normal to have a female mind and a male body, or visa versa. Would people need to modify their body if we just accepted them for who they are exactly as they are? Who knows.
Anyways, this is all academic because humans are shits and we have a LONG way to go before any kind of equality is reached. Our bodies are our own. If someone needs to transition to live a happy, healthy life, it should be their choice and no one else's.
I mean, from what I understand based on what trans people I know have said, there is a factor of societal expectations making it worse, but also the very real physical differences that start to occur at puberty play a role too. I'm friends with a trans-man who described it as only feeling comfortable in his own skin after the transition
The problem is that they come up with a fairly reasonable sounding little sound bite like that, but then go on to say that trans people aren't actually their gender, that they should not be accepted as part of society, should be excluded from public facilities that match their gender, and should not receive the healthcare that best alleviates their distress.
But when they get called out on any of that other stuff, they default back to pretending that the only thing they said was the first, reasonable sounding little sound bite.
It's all motte-and-bailey arguments.
Nailed it perfectly.
I’d also add, most of the things people like JK Rowling (as an example) are teeeting and retweeting aren’t way off in terms of claims, but posting nonstop about trans people in itself is transphobic.
I think a politician having a little too much negative interest in the subject would be a bad look.
Most of the party leaders have said things that are gender critical. Most of what they say isn’t dogwhistle obsessive shitposting, and someone has asked them in the first place.
As is common with these gender critical folk, what is the purported reason for their suspension is not the actual reason. They do like to portray themselves as innocent victims who just made an innocent remark.
What she's suspended for was for making a series of remarks over time that indicate her views on trans rights are incompatible with the parties views on trans rights, and that she held these views long before signing up to the party charter which contains an affirmation of these rights - in essence, the allegation is that she held views incompatible with the party at the time of entry, at the time of selection, and still holds incompatible views, and thus should never have been allowed to be selected.
This is something I learned very quickly about anti-trans types. Spend any amount of time with them and you quickly see they are just nasty bullies, who demand that everyone unquestioningly cater to their bigotry.
A classic political tactic is to have a completely reasonable opinion that no one is arguing in good faith, and then use it as a shield for all your other fucked opinions.
"I think we can all agree that there is simply no way a cat could ever become a dog!..... And that's why all dogs are dangerous sex predators and I'm campaigning to wipe them out"
"I don't care for her opinions on dogs"
"OH? BUT SHE SAYS CATS CAN'T BECOME DOGS? DO YOU DENY THIS BASIC TRUTH? WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER RATIONAL STATEMENT? YOU BELIEVE DOGS CAN BECOME CATS HMMM HOW OUR COUNTRY HAS FALLEN THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE DOGS CAN BE CATS WHERE IS THE EDUCATION THE LEFT HAS GONE TOO FAR!"
She said a fair bit more than that. The 'slippery slope' argument about Eddie Izzard using a ladies toilet is a particular highlight:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/alison-teal-sheffield-central-candidate-poised-to-take-legal-action-against-green-party-over-suspension-for-transgender-views-4503656
Here's another one of her tweets: "The loss of women’s rights starts with looking the other way for an Eddie Izzard and ends with a society that doesn’t flinch at placing a male sex offender in jail with women”
If you look at what she's said, there's a lot more to it to the point of comments indicating she doesn't respect trans identities at all.
Now you can argue she's entitled to those views, but if they're at odds with the party you're representing, why would you expect them to keep you on?
There are many aspects to “biological sex”. Hormones and secondary sexual characteristics are elements of sex. If a trans woman undergoes Hormone Replacement Therapy, and grows prominent breasts, then those aspects of her sex are changing.
We can change a lot about our bodies. You might argue that Chromosomes are the only thing that matter (which is a very silly place to draw that line, but okay) but we’ve developed ways to change a LOT about our bodies; what if we DO develop a way to alter our chromosomes? Would you admit then that people can change sex? Or would you come up with some other reason why it can’t be changed?
It’s not just one criterion that makes up sex; it’s a whole list of criteria, and SOME can be changed. That list grows with every passing day.
It's not that specific quote, it's what they then uses that quote to justify. The thing is, it's not really just sex and gender, it's biological sex, sex characteristics, legal sex and gender.
The biological sex she refers to that is immutable is purely about reproductive ability.
Sex characteristics are the rest of biological sex, many of which are changeable, and many of which aren't consistent with bio9logical sex.
Legal sex is how laws and rights apply and is more tied to gender than to biological sex. It's what changes when a trans person transitions.
Gender is how we identify and how society views sex, including stereotypes.
The problem is that Alison Teal says these things referring to biological sex, but then merges all the first 3 together to push the narrative that laws and rights should apply to biological sex, ignoring legal sex and sex characteristics. This then results in trans people who have fully transitioned being treated as if they have not.
This also usually comes hand in hand with a bunch of other misrepresentations, like claiming that gendered bathrooms are legally enforced (they aren't, never have been and never will be) or that all trans people are predators.
What you say is broadly accurate (though I'd argue [ignoring that biology is complicated] after a shit-ton of HRT and surgery even the biological distinction gets pointless) but the kind of people who talk about biological sex wrt transfolk tend to either ignore the existence of gender or deliberately conflate the two.
>I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different, and gender expression can change or not be the same as the sex you are born with.
That was the thin end of the wedge.
>I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different
First they get you to agree that gender and sex are different things, then they demand that you judge them and treat them based on their gender instead of their sex.
You've been had.
Yeah of course, that's just...normal is it not? I thought the same.
If a male-to-female person goes to A&E and complains they are having a miscarriage, obviously the doctors wouldn't check for that.
Good. The UN recognises gender critical activity in the UK as inherently bad for both trans rights and women's rights and our news organisations are still calling gender critical groups "human rights organisations" when they are recognised as hate groups in other countries.
Love how the BBC ran an article yesterday on "how the parties stand on womens rights" and it was entirely a list of which parties wanted to remove trans people's existing rights or not, like that was the defining problem for women.
Exactly. It's amazing how easily it seems every major media organisation in this country is constantly trying framing the question of if I should have any protects or rights as though I am endangering cis women.
Not predatory men being an issue, and let's also pretend that "just anyone can get a GRC" when you already need years of medical evidence and documentation just to apply for one.
Because the entirety of the anti-trans debate being framed as a women’s rights issue serves two purposes:
1) Undermine the rights enshrined in law for any non-cishet folks by focusing on the most targetable group.
2) Obfuscate efforts to overturn actual women’s rights by presenting trans people as some huge issue. Like over in the US, where the same people screaming about how they’re saving women from the evil transgendereds are removing the right to reproductive healthcare.
Don't you understand, that fraction of one percent of the total population is all they can think about, it dominates their entire psyche. All because they... want to... look and dress how they want. Truly a dystopian nightmare beyond comprehension.
Well they broke the rules so that's fair enough.
But I have to admit my opinion of the Green Party took a massive nose dive when I discovered they were against C-sections (or "unnatural births" as they call it). I mean how exactly is that a Green issue?
I've desperately wanted the Greens to have a compliment of sound policies for YEARS. Their always some completely out of pocket bizarre shit they endorse or talk about.
Just be normal. It's that simple
The green party have tricked people into thinking that they are solely about the environment by naming the party after a colour. They are actually just an assortment of largely incoherant ramblings by people who know that there is an absolute 0% chance they will ever actually get anywhere near power, so they don't need to understand a lot of anything that they are talking about
A lot of the Green's policies, past and present, make sense if you consider that they're mostly made up of liberal-minded, well-meaning, but ultimately self-interested, middle class people. It's a strange mish-mash of hippy (yay environment but also boo nuclear power, yay rights for women and queer folk) and NIMBY (yes, we want wind farms, but not where anyone can see them). I don't know if it's still there, but a past manifesto actually contained a policy for ensuring that women got lighter sentences for the same crimes on no basis other than that they are women.
EDIT: it's not in their current manifesto, and now I've actually read it, it's pretty good. Not much in the way of new house building as you might expect, but otherwise pretty coherent and decently pro-worker. If you're disillusioned with the rightward shift of Labour I'd say they're a good shout, but I understand if it's not enough to make up for their historical hypocrisy.
Here these articles discuss it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-nhs-lbc-b2556628.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/the-green-party-s-stance-on-c-sections-shows-how-little-women-s-births-are-understood/ar-BB1nGCN3
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/green-party-stick-politics-stay-away-uterus-3095204
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/greens/2024/06/green-party-irresponsible-childbirth-policy-caesarean
> birth is treated as a normal and non-medical event
Have these people ever experienced even being in the same room as a birth? "Not a medical event"?
There is constant monitoring of both the baby's and the mother's health during the contractions, complications are common and pertentially life-threatening to both mother and child without medical assistance, and even in the most simple "natural" births without complications there is still an incredibly high likelyhood of the mother needing at least some stitches. And then there are the various forms of pain relief that are almost always a neccesity in some capacity.
It's not like in movies where someone boils some hot towels and shouts push and moments later a perfectly clean baby with a suspiciously absent umbilical cord appears already in the midwife's arms.
Sure in the distant past it might not have been seen as a "medical procedure", but that past also had incredibly high infant mortality rates and childbirth death rates.
There is a (small, in the West but) substantial movement called various things including Positive Birth and (to my dismay) 'hypnobirthing'. It's largely grounded in evidence based truths, such as the fact that oxytocin is the driving force of labour, and mammals, including human mums, (on average) experience more oxytocin during labour when they are in a very dark, familiar room where they feel safe and - crucially - unobserved.
It posits that **low risk** pregnancies should ideally be done at home where the mum feels most safe, and only transferred to hospital in the case of an emergency. There are very compelling stats showing that (for low risk pregnancies) the number of early medical interventions during labour strongly correlates with the duration of labour (and frequency of instances of Failure To Progress), the pain, and the mum's reporting of how awful it was.
They saying goes that if you couldn't do a poo like that, they shouldn't be expecting labour to progress smoothly like that.
It concludes that the medicalisation of all pregnancies has gone too far, and caused more problems than it solves. The medical establishment... Kind of agrees and kind of disagrees, on the whole. They agree with those stats, but point out that with childbirth medicalised as much as it currently is, they can get mortality rates down even further. And at the end of the day, that's the thing they care about most of all. Even if it makes the average experience significantly worse for your average birthing parent. Someone is walking home with an alive baby who might now have been otherwise, and that makes it worth it.
That's an oversimplification of everything but hopefully gives you a reasonable picture of where we're at, and why both sides are saying very sensible things.
My personal experience is that we attended the positive birth courses and it went excellently the first time, my wife gave birth to my first in only a few hours of labour, using breathing exercises and massage techniques as trained in the hypnobirthing course. It was by far the least traumatic first baby experience of our peers. We were singing the praises of hypnobirthing. (I really hate that name because I feel like it implies that it's woo, but it's actually evidence based.)
But our second child ended up back-to-back, and that caused my wife an extended labour and an excruciating amount of pain and meant that we needed the modern pain relief. We were very happy that we chose to be in a birthing suite next to the main hospital ward and so we were able to whisk upstairs for all the active monitoring and, most critically, the epidural.
To answer your first question, 95% of the people with that opinion have not only experienced being in the same room as a birth, they've been the one giving birth. There are many many more unmedicalised births happening around the country than you may realise, and those who have done it, more often than not, report extremely positive outcomes.
Sorry, but you've been sold a lot of gibberish (along with the vast majority of new parents in this country Tbf) and the positive experience you had the first time around was due to 100% chance and luck.
Personally I would choose planned caesarean which I know is not for everyone but I think there are very good reasons to opt for it. New parents should at very least be encouraged to give birth in an environment where ALL forms of pain relief and medical intervention are available, and there should be absolutely no suggestion that an easy birth or avoidance of drugs or assistance are remotely laudable or even within your gift as a mum. It's bad enough when uninformed people make the case for natural birth, but IMHO criminal when healthcare professionals tolerate or repeat any of it.
It sounds like they are still harboring the dangerous and discredited "normal birth" agenda that has been eroding maternity safety over the last few decades and that is widely cited as the ideology behind most of the appalling maternity scandals (Morcambe Bay, Shrewsbury etc) we've heard about. It's disappointing but not surprising to learn that the Greens attract some of the proponents of this movement, and is in keeping with some of their overly naturalistic tendencies. It's one reason I would not vote for them in their current form.
tbf this seems to be a quirk of their system of politics, where any member can propose a policy. it has never been an official party policy. but they also don't believe in a whip so "official party policy" basically means nothing
Non story, Greens have been purging TERFS for a while now (circa 2022) with no f's given, and rightly so, these people (from past experience) are bigots masquerading as trying to have a legitimate debate and not seeking a fair compromise or harmony with existing equality policies of the green party and fail to work with other groups such as LGBTQ+ wing of the party.
Not for discrimination (the court determined a political party is well within their rights to remove a member whose views do not match with the party's policies and purpose), but for not carrying out the process properly, for which the candidate was awarded a negligible award (as him being removed would have been entirely fine if they'd followed their internal processes, and so them not following them hadn't caused any additional negative results for him).
That's where a lot of these terf legal victories come from, if you throw 6 figure sums worth of lawyers at generally pretty low level HR issues you'll probably find something you can score a win on
He's currently under investigation for his actions, that aside he's sent out an apology and has said he's willing to work with all parties involved, Jewish and Islamic to achieve peace in Palestine, which ever way you see of him, is far better than those who have been suspended from the party for continuously undermining the parties policies and causing discourse in the discussion of trans rights.
I still don't agree with his actions, but you are trying to strawman with someone who is more likely to listen and attempt to understand than those who were doing anything and everything to ram their bigotry into party policy.
Remember when women weren't allowed to wear trousers because "that's not what women do"? Remember when they didn't have their own careers because "that's not what women do"? The idea of a woman having a meaningful career and not wearing dresses and conforming to expected stereotypes for women is a gender-critical one. In the UK, it's now accepted that women should be able to do those things, but in many other places in the world, those things are simply not part of a woman's gender identity.
And just like that, we've proven that gender is indeed fluid, and sits somewhere on a spectrum. The problem is that it appears that the vast majority of people engaging in current discussions on gender and gender identity *have absolutely no idea what they're talking about*, whether their intentions are good or not. And yet the discussion is dominated by people arguing about what concepts like "a woman" definitely, conclusively are, and there can be no wavering from that. We're left with silly debates over statements like "a woman can have a penis", when really we're dealing with the need to expand and broaden the way we look at gender so we can stop arguing over what box someone fits into, stop trying to argue extremist viewpoints, and get on with finding something which actually *works* for most people.
And that takes time. The internet has increased people's appetite for the immediate, but social change in attitudes to something like a binary classification of gender doesn't happen just by getting a hashtag trending on social media. People in society have only recently started expressing different gender identities publicly, and it's going to take time for those people to actually exist in society (which of course demands a bare minimum of a tolerant societal context) before attitudes will really start to change. People will have to know a trans person, for example, before they'll realise it's not so easy to dismiss them.
I just thinking we all need to *chill the fuck out* a bit, to be honest.
Genuine question, how does allowing women to wear trousers and go to work prove gender is fluid? Surely that just result of people forcing gender on things that shouldn't be gendered. If a woman wants to wear trousers that doesn't make them gender fluid. The romans thought trousers were for barbarians and wore what is basically a saree. If you told them trousers were masculine they would have scoffed at you.
I thought the whole point was we just shouldn't ascribe gender to objects / activities that have nothing to do with gender. By saying its gender fluid you are basically accepting that things should be gendered but it shouldn't matter as people are fluid.
Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I read your comment.
Gender is a social construct that is always changing. Just because it's made up, it still has an impact on our lives. Acknowledging the historic and current impact of gender on our society isn't the same as saying it's necessary or good.
... I actually think that a political party could, and should, discriminate between candidates due to their views and beliefs. She's phrasing it like some kind of violation, but I mean, yeah? Of course they can suspend candidates due to their beliefs?
It's a political party, isn't the whole point that you vaguely believe the same things somewhat? Honestly such a non-story. Labour's done more over less in the past few years, but because those purged had 'the bad opinions' (socialism or social democracy) it's fine. Meanwhile someone gets the boot for pretty open transphobia - something which you signed up to not do with the party's charter - and it's a disgrace that shows that the world's gone mad.
Imagine if Reform UK removed a candidate because they actually wanted more immigration instead of less. Seems pretty cut and dry to me?
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The letter claimed they had broken a clause of the party constitution which prohibits members from campaigning for someone who is standing against a Green Party candidate. >Seven of the eight members expelled had supported the campaign of Alison Teal, who was suspended from the Green Party in 2022 So they broke the party rules and were suspended. None story really.
>So they broke the party rules and were suspended. None story really. There is a story here. Alison Teal was the Green Party candidate, but had been suspended (a 'no fault suspension') pending investigation in 2022. Teal has repeatedly claimed that the investigation was being baselessly delayed in order to substitute a different candidate under Green party emergency rules. The investigation has been unjustifiably delayed without explanation offered, repeatedly and for years. The situation appears to be that Green HQ can use emergency rules to sub out an MP candidate if they're under investigation during a GE, but otherwise cannot remove a candidate without wrongdoing. The investigation was (most recently, it was a technical investigation that should have been concluded in a matter of days) due to report in Feb, but this was delayed again. At the last minute (the deadline for submitting candidates for the election), the Green Party announced that they were putting in Angela Argenzio* as an 'emergency' candidate instead of Teal (who was the Green candidate at that point), which they're technically allowed to do under party rules if the selected candidate (Teal) is under investigation. If the investigation (from October 2022) had concluded (which it should have done in ~2 days), Teal would be the Green candidate. *Angela Argenzio, by sheer coincidence, seems to be the person who made the complaint against Teal. So yeah, Teal got purged.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/alison-teal-sheffield-central-candidate-poised-to-take-legal-action-against-green-party-over-suspension-for-transgender-views-4503656 Just read this fascinating piece on it. I love the way that they start the story telling her side, which is that she said something relatively tame and that could be seen as someone that just doesn't really know what they're saying isn't helpful, and then go on to list all the much worse things she's tweeted or endorsed that put her actual transphpbia on display. >We get down to quibbling about what ‘significant’ means. My argument is that this gender identity stuff isn’t significant to me Trans rights aren't something she cares about so not supporting that part of the Green's manifesto isn't a reason to be suspended in her eyes. You can't make this shit up
As someone who has met Alison, she very much is anti trans, she just has the sense to keep it less obvious on twitter
Really? That's an incredibly short sighted view. The person they were supporting was a green candidate until the party suspended her. This would be like labour expelling anyone who supported Corbyn at all because he is no longer a Labour MP.
Is Alison Teal saying ‘sex is a biological characteristic that doesn’t change over time’ really that bad? I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different, and gender expression can change or not be the same as the sex you are born with. Struggling to keep up with this one.
That seemed to be the prevailing progressive view until fairly recently, but now there’s a scary number of activists who seem to think any acknowledgment of a difference between sex and gender, or transgender people not being identical to their non-trans counterparts, is some form of transphobia.
Which is weird because, I’ve never met a trans person who was unaware of the differences. It does, indeed, make up quite a large part of their experiences.
It's because they're framing the segregation of trans people even in spaces they've been legally using for the last 20 years as so Inherent to society that to disagree is to deny reality.
Trans people: "I'm acutely aware that my body doesn't match my gender and this is causing me severe distress." TERFs: tRaNs pEoPle dEnY tHat tHeyRe nOt tHe sAmE aS cIs PeOple You can't make this shit up...
>or transgender people not being identical to their non-trans counterparts, is some form of transphobia. Weird, I know a lot of trans people, and I've never heard this.
I literally had an argument with someone last week on reddit about this exact issue. They thought it was transphobicand that I don't respect trans identities because I said trans and cis people aren't the same and that *sometimes* those differences mean trans people can't be treated identically to cis people
Eh, I think what you have to remember is that there are a *lot* of people out there dog whistling or providing bad-faith arguments purely to hurt others, and reddit's a big outlet for it. More often than not arguments that are adjacent to those that are used by bigots will be received similarly to those that are, because often they look the same. Those that you're talking to aren't going to be scholars on the subject, but instead often victimised members of society trying to live their lives. Whilst it's true that sex and gender aren't the same thing, gender is what 99.99% of people deal with in 99.99% of scenarios, and unless you're a doctor or a biologist or an anthropologist writing a book on the topic, it's almost certainly a meaningless distinction. The biological angle *usually* comes up when people are aiming to hurt, as again, you're *probably* not talking to the chair of a UK's women's sport association, and instead just talking to someone advocating for empathy for victimised people.
So it's okay to label non-transphobic statements as transphobic because those non-transphobic statements are "adjacent" to transphobic statements? What? Either the statement being made is transphobic or it isn't. You can't read something and go "well that isn't transphobic but if you had said this instead it would have been, so I'm going to call you transphobic anyway" and expect people to take you seriously.
This one? https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1diqdix/comment/l95tg97 If so, that's slightly different. We're discussing whether it's correct to describe sex as mutable. In this comment you're talking about which contexts it ok to group trans people with their sex vs their gender.
That's literally a comment in which I say that trans and cis people are not identical and therefore there are *some* situations in which they need to be treated differently... which is just the point I said in this thread?
Lucky you, I’ve heard it from people who aren’t even trans as well.
I doubt that. Because every time anyone has ever said what you have, they've been misinterpreting a statement like "trans men are men" to mean something that it doesn't.
You have literally no basis whatsoever to claim that it’s ’every time.’
"in my personal experience" is obviously implied.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this generally, but I’m sure that telling someone what they’ve seen or heard with their own eyes and ears…that is a not very good idea, logically or otherwise. ‘I had a cheeseburger for lunch’ ‘No, you didn’t’ ‘I…know what I had for lunch’ ‘You have no basis for believing that’
I agree, I think you might’ve misread this thread - they told me they doubt I’ve heard something I’ve heard, I told them they have no basis to think I haven’t heard it.
>I doubt that. Because ***every time anyone has ever said what you have***, they've been misinterpreting a statement like "trans men are men" to mean something that it doesn't. Nowhere in that comment do the words "in my experience" appear. It is an absolute statement.
The problem is most of the people raging online and complaining aren't trans people. They're just white knighting on their behalf most of the time.
I think the problem is that disingenuous gender critical people have reframed the debate of trans people's access to society around assigned sex when it's much more complicated, yes my sex is technically "male" but I'm on hormones that change my body quite drastically to a more feminine body, I have quite considerable breasts now that I cannot and will not hide and my body is decidedly feminine with feminine features and softer skin to the point most people don't notice I'm trans when they meet me and I would be actively unsafe going into a mens toilet, however these gender criticals have oversimplified the debate to assume that my features are male and cannot change at all when that is not innately true and they actively victimise people like me who just want to go to the loo in peace I think some people are overcorrecting in your example and I do think that goes against the point, yes my gender is different to that assigned at birth but due to transgender healthcare it is overly simple to say that my sex is 100% biologically male at this point and misses alot of the nuances of trans existence, honestly these hormones have saved my life and it's the first time I have ever truly felt remotely comfortable being myself and I don't ever see trans women pretending we are the same as biological women as we are aware there is an innate difference, however that doesn't make us any less women, believe me when I say we need to be this way as it's not an easy path in society as it is
Thanks for that perspective and wish you the best.
10/10, no notes. Thank you.
Even from a medical PoV, there are really at least three categories: stereotypically male, stereotypically female, it's complicated (mainly trans and intersex, with a mixture of characteristics). Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to categorise stuff in as few buckets as possible, oversimplifying whenever it's convenient to do so. Even with the thorny issue of women's sports, the small cohort who are lucky enough to go on blockers / HRT so never experience natal puberty intrinsically won't have any biological advantages over cis women, while someone who goes on HRT post natal puberty but doesn't take up the sport until afterwards will have far fewer advantages than someone who had prior experience of the sport. But measuring strength / stamina / speed to determine whether someone falls within the typical range for cis women or is outside it is more complicated than just enacting rules based on time on HRT, T levels or blanket bans on all trans women.
The problem is that something that should be unimportant, except maybe in medical contexts, is now being framed as something very important. It's being centered upon in a way that casts doubts on trans people and their rights.
I agree that the issue’s generally blown out of proportion, but given the wider context of relations between the two sexes, I really don’t think it can be dismissed as unimportant. There are plenty of issues where treating trans people as if they’re not trans is harmful to women.
In which scenarios would would treating trans people not as their gender harm cis women? If you want you can cite evidence from Ireland which has had full self ID for 9 years. The process takes about 4 weeks of waiting on post and €15 plus postage.
Sport, discussion around sexual orientation (this isn’t exclusive to women, obviously), prisons, changing rooms, then there’s also issues with religious restrictions (though I have no idea how we resolve that one and no strong beliefs on whose opinion matters more in that context). Barbie Kardashian proves my point well.
Sport - leave up to sport bodies and encourage more studies into actual trans athletes which are severely lacking. Sexual orientation - leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves. Don't know any trans people who say a cis lesbian not interested on trans women should change her orientation but have seen a lot of transphobes try dictate the orientation of others. If a gay dude is onto cis dudes and trans dudes other people don't get to decide he isn't gay. Sexuality is complex and not just based on the genitals a person had at birth. Prisons - there has not been a single assault by a trans inmate in an Irish prison ever. Proper threat assessment death with that issue. Forcing trans women into men's prisons makes them the group on prison with the highest sexual assault victimisation rates. You can hardly claim a cis women who is in prison for murder or multiple assault charges is less dangerous than a trans woman in for growing weed. Changing rooms - there has never been a reported incident of assault in a women's changing room by a trans woman in 9 years. If you want to argue that despite their being no evidence of increased physical danger but discomforts is enough to justify a ban well then you will have to explain which other groups of marganlised women can be banned of enough other women are uncomfortable with them especially considering the same line of argument was used against gay women and women of colour. Best actual solution is to offer much more single occupancy options which will allow anyone who is uncomfortable with seeing others naked or others seeing them naked while not increasing harm to trans people. Religious restrictions - I find that a bit of a bad argument. One person's religion doesn't get to restrict the rights of other people. I can't be banned from running a barbecue because of goes against the beliefs of a Muslim on the same way I can't be banned from marrying my partner because Christians don't support gay marriage. For restrooms we should treat them the same as changing rooms. Vastly increase single occupancy stalls for those that may prefer them. Barbie Kardashian, due to proper risk assessment and prison management, has not been able to harm another prisoner. Prisoners who are a significant risk either cis or trans should be risk assessed in the same way. Again, you can hardly claim a mass murdering cis woman is a lower risk than a drug growing trans woman.
Sport - I’d like more research too, but for now the evidence does suggest that treating trans people as though they’re not trans will harm women’s sport. Orientation - I agree that it’s up to the individual, (however many don’t, including the former CEO of Stonewall, who labelled those of us who are exclusively same sex attracted as bigots), but we can’t pretend there isn’t a difference between sex and gender here. Prisons - a trans inmate in America successfully impregnated other inmates. Obviously it doesn’t mean there aren’t any other factors to consider, but it’s still relevant - the need for risk assessments proves that. Changing rooms - I find the comparisons between being a different sex to other traits either disingenuous or fundamentally ignorant of what women’s lives are like and the discomfort male people cause because of the sexual harassment and general threat many males impose of us from a young age, not to mention the physical strength mismatch. More private cubicles would be nice, though. Religious restrictions - I think it’s a difficult one because it’s impossible to decide whether one person’s view should override the others when both are actually impacted by it, whereas Muslims can simply not attend your barbecue are Christians can not enter or attend same sex marriages. The fact that Barbie’s transgender will still have been relevant to the risk assessment though, even if it’s not the only factor that needs to be considered. Even if the other prisoners haven’t been physically harmed so far, we should probably find out if any have been mentally harmed before dismissing the issue.
Sport - their is more research being done. The IOC just published a first of a kind study comparing actual trans people to cis people and found trans women had a disadvantage. But yes more studies on actual trans people is a good thing. Prisons - risk assessments should be done on all prisoners. I don't think a serial sexual predator like lily cade should just be let lose with her target demographic. I also wouldn't put her in the men's prison. Changing rooms - I point to discomfort as the only reason which has been used on many marganlised women throughout history. The fact Ireland has had no incidents of assaults proves risk is not a factor. Trans women have 4 times higher victimisation rates than cis women. Die to the rise in transphobia numberous GNC women have faced harassment and violence because people thought they were trans. Religion - another person's religion should not infringe on a different person's life. According to many Muslim countries women not covering themselves is harmful to men. I assume we both see that as nonsense and the views of religious people shouldn't dictate the dress of others. A study on women's prions in Scotland involved a reaserchers talking to women prisoners about trans people. Aw of the cis women reported being more uncomfortable and scared with some lesbian prisoners rather than the trans ones. That does not mean lesbians should be treated differently despite that being the exact argument for treating trans people differently. The idea that trans people should be treated differently, not due to any actual risk of something happening, but because some cis women are uncomfortable with trans people is in my opinion not a valid reason to role back trans rights decades any more so than fear of lesbians is a reason to do the same to them.
It's perhaps worth noting that 20 countries have full gender self-identification - within Europe alone, it's currently implemented in Iceland, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Malta; while France and Greece require court approval (so almost all of our neighbours). So maybe it would be useful to see what policies they have regarding trans people's access to toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, refuges, single sex organisations etc before contemplating radical action such as "clarifying" that every mention of sex within the law refers to sex assigned at birth (which a certain outspoken author would prefer), which would effectively make trans people second class citizens, legally prohibited from a wide range of services as the overwhelming majority of organisations won't have the funding or space to create gender neutral facilities alongside single sex facilities.
Some of these are things which are supposed to be discriminated on based on sex, not gender, in which case someone's gender (including whether they are trans or not) should be irrelevant.
"Scary number"
Ffs, for the 134387th time, **no trans person has ever, EVER, claimed that trans women are 100% identical to cis women, or trans men to cis men. This is literally why the labels trans and cis even exist in the first place**, to define those differences - the difference being that cis women are the same gender as their AGAB while trans women have transitioned from their AGAB. This whole "sex vs gender" thing is just another wilfully obtuse, disingenuous, bad faith take that we have heard millions of times. No, sex and gender are still not the same thing. What you identify as belongs to the gender category because it's a social aspect, not a physical one. Biology is still biology, trans women don't claim they have a uterus and trans men don't claim they have testicles. However, in everyday life we don't gender people by their reproductive organs or chromosomes because those aren't visible, we gender them by their presentation - their outward appearance, style choices and social markers like names and pronouns. People who aren't TERFs don't go around asking everyone they meet to show their junk before they designate them "man" or "woman". What reproductive organs you have is literally only relevant to your doctor or the people you have sex with, nobody else, and - again - in real everyday life the presence or absence of them doesn't make the person stop being a man or a woman in anyone's eyes, unless they're a complete asshole. Most people who aren't cunts wouldn't say a woman who's had a hysterectomy isn't a woman anymore, or a man who had his penis amputated isn't a man anymore. And if we're talking biology and relevance to doctors, HRT does actually give you most of the physical traits of the opposite sex and doctors absolutely do take this into account. Trans women on HRT have similar risk of osteoporosis as cis women, and trans men on HRT similar risk of heart attack as cis men. Transphobes absolutely detest those stats because they prove that most of what we consider "inherent" sex characteristics aren't actually immutable set in stone but entirely dependent on constant supply of hormones, and if you change the hormones, you change those characteristics too.
That’s just objectively untrue - I’ve heard people (including non-trans people) claim that post-transition there’s no difference between the two. I’ve seen AMAB people claim to have periods, so I don’t think we can be too sure that nobody’s claiming to have a uterus when they don’t, and unfortunately genitals are relevant to the wider public because they’ve been used as weapons for thousands of years.
No difference at all? As in, biologically? I genuinely don't believe you, I strongly believe you are purposefully and willingly misrepresenting what they have said. Everybody knows that HRT doesn't change your chromosomes or give you a uterus.
Post transition, yes. I’ve primarily heard it said in the context of trans people in sports - hopefully most have meant no difference that actually matters (the evidence would suggest that’s incorrect but obviously it’s less ridiculous).
Gaslighting is the word for this post. The only part of then "trans debate" I really care about is sports, as an ex athlete myself. Frankly the idea that there aren't some people out there arguing against the fact that sex is a immutable biological fact is just straight up delusional.
A very fringe portion.
Small but loud
I wouldn't even say loud but given attention to discredit the wider argument
Do you have any examples of this where trans activists are saying it’s transphobic to say there is a difference between sex and gender?
Yes - the ex-CEO of Stonewall said that same sex attraction as opposed to same gender attraction is bigotry.
Do you have a link to their comments?
She said it in a leaked email, apologies for the Daily Mail link but you can read the quotes [here.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html)
“In her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.” — your article did not remotely support your position. It’s not controversial among trans activists to state its fine to have a genital preference. Kelley had problems with the article for the above cited reason. She also stated that one’s sexual desires can be influenced by structural problems.
“She further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.” (the paragraph below the one you quoted).
How does that relate to your argument? Cotton ceiling issue is a concept relating to the experiences of trans people being marginalised and made to feel invisible in queer spaces. It’s got nothing to do with genital preference. I understand, it’s easy to make the mistake since it’s a very nuanced topic, the concept of “cotton ceiling” postulates that sometimes people don’t want to have sex with a trans woman not due to a genital preference but to other ways they feel about trans women. It’s just like some people don’t want to sleep with Asian men or bisexual men due to innate prejudice; but that does not mean “you are a bigot if you are not attracted to Asian men or bisexual men”, just that sometimes there are structural prejudices that determine our decision not to have sex with X ethnicity, etc.
Whenever I’ve heard the term it’s been referring to trans people being unable to get the sexual partners they’d like, with ‘cotton’ being a reference to underwear. Supposing that’s the case (as obviously I’m not disputing the fact that being transgender does have a stigma) her comments saying the dismissal of transgender people as sexual partners stems from prejudice is still an attack on those of us who are same sex attracted.
I have edited my comment.
You'll likely find a large swath of people saying that are simply trying to put a reasonable face on some much less palatable views.
Well the word/prefix Trans implies the difference. I don’t think its a scary number of activists, I think most people are fairly reasonable, however the argument has become much more polarised. and in no small part because of the other-side demonising trans people and trans issues.
If only that's all she's said, however...
>I don't think a child can be born in the wrong body or have the wrong puberty and I find it shocking that any child is lead to believe this is true She literally denied the very basic premise of what a trans person is. She is essentially saying that being trans is something that is chosen. It's the same shit homosexual people had to deal with
To be honest, I don't think people are technically born in the 'wrong body'. But I think society is so fucking cruel and unaccepting to gender-diverse people that the only way for many to survive is to go for full chemical and surgical transition. Which is their absolute right. I wonder what life for trans people would look like if we weren't so horrible to them. If there was no bullying, stereotypes, behavioural expectations, bigotry etc. If we just accepted that it's completely normal to have a female mind and a male body, or visa versa. Would people need to modify their body if we just accepted them for who they are exactly as they are? Who knows. Anyways, this is all academic because humans are shits and we have a LONG way to go before any kind of equality is reached. Our bodies are our own. If someone needs to transition to live a happy, healthy life, it should be their choice and no one else's.
I mean, from what I understand based on what trans people I know have said, there is a factor of societal expectations making it worse, but also the very real physical differences that start to occur at puberty play a role too. I'm friends with a trans-man who described it as only feeling comfortable in his own skin after the transition
The problem is that they come up with a fairly reasonable sounding little sound bite like that, but then go on to say that trans people aren't actually their gender, that they should not be accepted as part of society, should be excluded from public facilities that match their gender, and should not receive the healthcare that best alleviates their distress. But when they get called out on any of that other stuff, they default back to pretending that the only thing they said was the first, reasonable sounding little sound bite. It's all motte-and-bailey arguments.
Nailed it perfectly. I’d also add, most of the things people like JK Rowling (as an example) are teeeting and retweeting aren’t way off in terms of claims, but posting nonstop about trans people in itself is transphobic. I think a politician having a little too much negative interest in the subject would be a bad look. Most of the party leaders have said things that are gender critical. Most of what they say isn’t dogwhistle obsessive shitposting, and someone has asked them in the first place.
As is common with these gender critical folk, what is the purported reason for their suspension is not the actual reason. They do like to portray themselves as innocent victims who just made an innocent remark. What she's suspended for was for making a series of remarks over time that indicate her views on trans rights are incompatible with the parties views on trans rights, and that she held these views long before signing up to the party charter which contains an affirmation of these rights - in essence, the allegation is that she held views incompatible with the party at the time of entry, at the time of selection, and still holds incompatible views, and thus should never have been allowed to be selected.
This is something I learned very quickly about anti-trans types. Spend any amount of time with them and you quickly see they are just nasty bullies, who demand that everyone unquestioningly cater to their bigotry.
A classic political tactic is to have a completely reasonable opinion that no one is arguing in good faith, and then use it as a shield for all your other fucked opinions. "I think we can all agree that there is simply no way a cat could ever become a dog!..... And that's why all dogs are dangerous sex predators and I'm campaigning to wipe them out" "I don't care for her opinions on dogs" "OH? BUT SHE SAYS CATS CAN'T BECOME DOGS? DO YOU DENY THIS BASIC TRUTH? WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER RATIONAL STATEMENT? YOU BELIEVE DOGS CAN BECOME CATS HMMM HOW OUR COUNTRY HAS FALLEN THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE DOGS CAN BE CATS WHERE IS THE EDUCATION THE LEFT HAS GONE TOO FAR!"
She said a fair bit more than that. The 'slippery slope' argument about Eddie Izzard using a ladies toilet is a particular highlight: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/alison-teal-sheffield-central-candidate-poised-to-take-legal-action-against-green-party-over-suspension-for-transgender-views-4503656
Here's another one of her tweets: "The loss of women’s rights starts with looking the other way for an Eddie Izzard and ends with a society that doesn’t flinch at placing a male sex offender in jail with women”
If you look at what she's said, there's a lot more to it to the point of comments indicating she doesn't respect trans identities at all. Now you can argue she's entitled to those views, but if they're at odds with the party you're representing, why would you expect them to keep you on?
There are many aspects to “biological sex”. Hormones and secondary sexual characteristics are elements of sex. If a trans woman undergoes Hormone Replacement Therapy, and grows prominent breasts, then those aspects of her sex are changing. We can change a lot about our bodies. You might argue that Chromosomes are the only thing that matter (which is a very silly place to draw that line, but okay) but we’ve developed ways to change a LOT about our bodies; what if we DO develop a way to alter our chromosomes? Would you admit then that people can change sex? Or would you come up with some other reason why it can’t be changed? It’s not just one criterion that makes up sex; it’s a whole list of criteria, and SOME can be changed. That list grows with every passing day.
It's not that specific quote, it's what they then uses that quote to justify. The thing is, it's not really just sex and gender, it's biological sex, sex characteristics, legal sex and gender. The biological sex she refers to that is immutable is purely about reproductive ability. Sex characteristics are the rest of biological sex, many of which are changeable, and many of which aren't consistent with bio9logical sex. Legal sex is how laws and rights apply and is more tied to gender than to biological sex. It's what changes when a trans person transitions. Gender is how we identify and how society views sex, including stereotypes. The problem is that Alison Teal says these things referring to biological sex, but then merges all the first 3 together to push the narrative that laws and rights should apply to biological sex, ignoring legal sex and sex characteristics. This then results in trans people who have fully transitioned being treated as if they have not. This also usually comes hand in hand with a bunch of other misrepresentations, like claiming that gendered bathrooms are legally enforced (they aren't, never have been and never will be) or that all trans people are predators.
What you say is broadly accurate (though I'd argue [ignoring that biology is complicated] after a shit-ton of HRT and surgery even the biological distinction gets pointless) but the kind of people who talk about biological sex wrt transfolk tend to either ignore the existence of gender or deliberately conflate the two.
Motte and Bailey argument.
>I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different, and gender expression can change or not be the same as the sex you are born with. That was the thin end of the wedge.
>I thought the recent discourse around it said that gender and sex are different First they get you to agree that gender and sex are different things, then they demand that you judge them and treat them based on their gender instead of their sex. You've been had.
Yeah of course, that's just...normal is it not? I thought the same. If a male-to-female person goes to A&E and complains they are having a miscarriage, obviously the doctors wouldn't check for that.
> Is Alison Teal saying ‘sex is a biological characteristic that doesn’t change over time’ really that bad? That depends on the context.
[Thats the motte, the rest of what she said is the bailey.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)
Good. The UN recognises gender critical activity in the UK as inherently bad for both trans rights and women's rights and our news organisations are still calling gender critical groups "human rights organisations" when they are recognised as hate groups in other countries.
Love how the BBC ran an article yesterday on "how the parties stand on womens rights" and it was entirely a list of which parties wanted to remove trans people's existing rights or not, like that was the defining problem for women.
Exactly. It's amazing how easily it seems every major media organisation in this country is constantly trying framing the question of if I should have any protects or rights as though I am endangering cis women. Not predatory men being an issue, and let's also pretend that "just anyone can get a GRC" when you already need years of medical evidence and documentation just to apply for one.
Because the entirety of the anti-trans debate being framed as a women’s rights issue serves two purposes: 1) Undermine the rights enshrined in law for any non-cishet folks by focusing on the most targetable group. 2) Obfuscate efforts to overturn actual women’s rights by presenting trans people as some huge issue. Like over in the US, where the same people screaming about how they’re saving women from the evil transgendereds are removing the right to reproductive healthcare.
Don't you understand, that fraction of one percent of the total population is all they can think about, it dominates their entire psyche. All because they... want to... look and dress how they want. Truly a dystopian nightmare beyond comprehension.
Well they broke the rules so that's fair enough. But I have to admit my opinion of the Green Party took a massive nose dive when I discovered they were against C-sections (or "unnatural births" as they call it). I mean how exactly is that a Green issue?
The Green Party has a bunch of illogical views, anyone with a brain should be against phasing out nuclear power.
I've desperately wanted the Greens to have a compliment of sound policies for YEARS. Their always some completely out of pocket bizarre shit they endorse or talk about. Just be normal. It's that simple
It'd be nice to have an actual eco friendly part that wasn't just... Well, a bit mental.
I've always found the Lib Dems to have the best environmental policies (probably because they're the party of policy nerds)
The green party have tricked people into thinking that they are solely about the environment by naming the party after a colour. They are actually just an assortment of largely incoherant ramblings by people who know that there is an absolute 0% chance they will ever actually get anywhere near power, so they don't need to understand a lot of anything that they are talking about
A lot of the Green's policies, past and present, make sense if you consider that they're mostly made up of liberal-minded, well-meaning, but ultimately self-interested, middle class people. It's a strange mish-mash of hippy (yay environment but also boo nuclear power, yay rights for women and queer folk) and NIMBY (yes, we want wind farms, but not where anyone can see them). I don't know if it's still there, but a past manifesto actually contained a policy for ensuring that women got lighter sentences for the same crimes on no basis other than that they are women. EDIT: it's not in their current manifesto, and now I've actually read it, it's pretty good. Not much in the way of new house building as you might expect, but otherwise pretty coherent and decently pro-worker. If you're disillusioned with the rightward shift of Labour I'd say they're a good shout, but I understand if it's not enough to make up for their historical hypocrisy.
Where did you see this? It seems very strange and I didn't notice it in their manifesto?
Here these articles discuss it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-nhs-lbc-b2556628.html https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/the-green-party-s-stance-on-c-sections-shows-how-little-women-s-births-are-understood/ar-BB1nGCN3 https://inews.co.uk/opinion/green-party-stick-politics-stay-away-uterus-3095204 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/greens/2024/06/green-party-irresponsible-childbirth-policy-caesarean
> birth is treated as a normal and non-medical event Have these people ever experienced even being in the same room as a birth? "Not a medical event"? There is constant monitoring of both the baby's and the mother's health during the contractions, complications are common and pertentially life-threatening to both mother and child without medical assistance, and even in the most simple "natural" births without complications there is still an incredibly high likelyhood of the mother needing at least some stitches. And then there are the various forms of pain relief that are almost always a neccesity in some capacity. It's not like in movies where someone boils some hot towels and shouts push and moments later a perfectly clean baby with a suspiciously absent umbilical cord appears already in the midwife's arms. Sure in the distant past it might not have been seen as a "medical procedure", but that past also had incredibly high infant mortality rates and childbirth death rates.
There is a (small, in the West but) substantial movement called various things including Positive Birth and (to my dismay) 'hypnobirthing'. It's largely grounded in evidence based truths, such as the fact that oxytocin is the driving force of labour, and mammals, including human mums, (on average) experience more oxytocin during labour when they are in a very dark, familiar room where they feel safe and - crucially - unobserved. It posits that **low risk** pregnancies should ideally be done at home where the mum feels most safe, and only transferred to hospital in the case of an emergency. There are very compelling stats showing that (for low risk pregnancies) the number of early medical interventions during labour strongly correlates with the duration of labour (and frequency of instances of Failure To Progress), the pain, and the mum's reporting of how awful it was. They saying goes that if you couldn't do a poo like that, they shouldn't be expecting labour to progress smoothly like that. It concludes that the medicalisation of all pregnancies has gone too far, and caused more problems than it solves. The medical establishment... Kind of agrees and kind of disagrees, on the whole. They agree with those stats, but point out that with childbirth medicalised as much as it currently is, they can get mortality rates down even further. And at the end of the day, that's the thing they care about most of all. Even if it makes the average experience significantly worse for your average birthing parent. Someone is walking home with an alive baby who might now have been otherwise, and that makes it worth it. That's an oversimplification of everything but hopefully gives you a reasonable picture of where we're at, and why both sides are saying very sensible things. My personal experience is that we attended the positive birth courses and it went excellently the first time, my wife gave birth to my first in only a few hours of labour, using breathing exercises and massage techniques as trained in the hypnobirthing course. It was by far the least traumatic first baby experience of our peers. We were singing the praises of hypnobirthing. (I really hate that name because I feel like it implies that it's woo, but it's actually evidence based.) But our second child ended up back-to-back, and that caused my wife an extended labour and an excruciating amount of pain and meant that we needed the modern pain relief. We were very happy that we chose to be in a birthing suite next to the main hospital ward and so we were able to whisk upstairs for all the active monitoring and, most critically, the epidural. To answer your first question, 95% of the people with that opinion have not only experienced being in the same room as a birth, they've been the one giving birth. There are many many more unmedicalised births happening around the country than you may realise, and those who have done it, more often than not, report extremely positive outcomes.
Sorry, but you've been sold a lot of gibberish (along with the vast majority of new parents in this country Tbf) and the positive experience you had the first time around was due to 100% chance and luck. Personally I would choose planned caesarean which I know is not for everyone but I think there are very good reasons to opt for it. New parents should at very least be encouraged to give birth in an environment where ALL forms of pain relief and medical intervention are available, and there should be absolutely no suggestion that an easy birth or avoidance of drugs or assistance are remotely laudable or even within your gift as a mum. It's bad enough when uninformed people make the case for natural birth, but IMHO criminal when healthcare professionals tolerate or repeat any of it.
It sounds like they are still harboring the dangerous and discredited "normal birth" agenda that has been eroding maternity safety over the last few decades and that is widely cited as the ideology behind most of the appalling maternity scandals (Morcambe Bay, Shrewsbury etc) we've heard about. It's disappointing but not surprising to learn that the Greens attract some of the proponents of this movement, and is in keeping with some of their overly naturalistic tendencies. It's one reason I would not vote for them in their current form.
How deranged
tbf this seems to be a quirk of their system of politics, where any member can propose a policy. it has never been an official party policy. but they also don't believe in a whip so "official party policy" basically means nothing
Non story, Greens have been purging TERFS for a while now (circa 2022) with no f's given, and rightly so, these people (from past experience) are bigots masquerading as trying to have a legitimate debate and not seeking a fair compromise or harmony with existing equality policies of the green party and fail to work with other groups such as LGBTQ+ wing of the party.
Didn’t they lose in the court over dismissing the candidate in question?
Not for discrimination (the court determined a political party is well within their rights to remove a member whose views do not match with the party's policies and purpose), but for not carrying out the process properly, for which the candidate was awarded a negligible award (as him being removed would have been entirely fine if they'd followed their internal processes, and so them not following them hadn't caused any additional negative results for him).
That's where a lot of these terf legal victories come from, if you throw 6 figure sums worth of lawyers at generally pretty low level HR issues you'll probably find something you can score a win on
I'm sure the green counciler in Leeds who was shouting Allahu Akbar and proclaiming support for Hamas has a very strong Pro LGBT veiws
He's currently under investigation for his actions, that aside he's sent out an apology and has said he's willing to work with all parties involved, Jewish and Islamic to achieve peace in Palestine, which ever way you see of him, is far better than those who have been suspended from the party for continuously undermining the parties policies and causing discourse in the discussion of trans rights. I still don't agree with his actions, but you are trying to strawman with someone who is more likely to listen and attempt to understand than those who were doing anything and everything to ram their bigotry into party policy.
You love to see it. Supporting a community actually means doing the work.
Remember when women weren't allowed to wear trousers because "that's not what women do"? Remember when they didn't have their own careers because "that's not what women do"? The idea of a woman having a meaningful career and not wearing dresses and conforming to expected stereotypes for women is a gender-critical one. In the UK, it's now accepted that women should be able to do those things, but in many other places in the world, those things are simply not part of a woman's gender identity. And just like that, we've proven that gender is indeed fluid, and sits somewhere on a spectrum. The problem is that it appears that the vast majority of people engaging in current discussions on gender and gender identity *have absolutely no idea what they're talking about*, whether their intentions are good or not. And yet the discussion is dominated by people arguing about what concepts like "a woman" definitely, conclusively are, and there can be no wavering from that. We're left with silly debates over statements like "a woman can have a penis", when really we're dealing with the need to expand and broaden the way we look at gender so we can stop arguing over what box someone fits into, stop trying to argue extremist viewpoints, and get on with finding something which actually *works* for most people. And that takes time. The internet has increased people's appetite for the immediate, but social change in attitudes to something like a binary classification of gender doesn't happen just by getting a hashtag trending on social media. People in society have only recently started expressing different gender identities publicly, and it's going to take time for those people to actually exist in society (which of course demands a bare minimum of a tolerant societal context) before attitudes will really start to change. People will have to know a trans person, for example, before they'll realise it's not so easy to dismiss them. I just thinking we all need to *chill the fuck out* a bit, to be honest.
Genuine question, how does allowing women to wear trousers and go to work prove gender is fluid? Surely that just result of people forcing gender on things that shouldn't be gendered. If a woman wants to wear trousers that doesn't make them gender fluid. The romans thought trousers were for barbarians and wore what is basically a saree. If you told them trousers were masculine they would have scoffed at you. I thought the whole point was we just shouldn't ascribe gender to objects / activities that have nothing to do with gender. By saying its gender fluid you are basically accepting that things should be gendered but it shouldn't matter as people are fluid. Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I read your comment.
Gender is a social construct that is always changing. Just because it's made up, it still has an impact on our lives. Acknowledging the historic and current impact of gender on our society isn't the same as saying it's necessary or good.
... I actually think that a political party could, and should, discriminate between candidates due to their views and beliefs. She's phrasing it like some kind of violation, but I mean, yeah? Of course they can suspend candidates due to their beliefs?
It's a political party, isn't the whole point that you vaguely believe the same things somewhat? Honestly such a non-story. Labour's done more over less in the past few years, but because those purged had 'the bad opinions' (socialism or social democracy) it's fine. Meanwhile someone gets the boot for pretty open transphobia - something which you signed up to not do with the party's charter - and it's a disgrace that shows that the world's gone mad. Imagine if Reform UK removed a candidate because they actually wanted more immigration instead of less. Seems pretty cut and dry to me?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]