Forum Topic

Mr Hawkes. Just an observation from theatres, restaurants, etc I've visited - perhaps I get out too much ... but I'm not trying to gaslight anyone. With regard to your earluer query about heterosexual men being a primary risk; that's obviously something I don't have experience of, but I'm reflecting comments from my wife (I hope she's not gaslighting me!), and female friends. Overall I'm just reflecting a broader spectrum of views. For the record, I wouldn't support violence or criminal damage in protests but I guess that's a reaction from some feeling they're backed into a corner? Look at the protests against the Trump admin in the US concerning shutting down services and research - although my understanding is they're in the main peaceful with most violence coming from MAGA supporters excepting some occasional attacks on Tesla salesrooms. I don't think any of my US friends/contacts reporting those would support any violence. (Although, apparently, Tesla sales outlets get better protection against violence than schools do these days but I'm not sure that's true ...)However, I agree with you, not much point in debating further. I would say, I thought Mr Thomson's post described the issue very succinctly, although a FB friend of mine who has read the complete ruling (all 88 pages!) says It might be at odds with the intention of the equality act but it is consistent with what it actually says.Sue, I think you'll find these days of DEI fathers often need changing facilities for babies these days :-)

Michael Ixer ● 70d

Mr Ixer'The original legislation obviously had an omission in not making safe havens for women under threat so I can understand the strong feelings behind this but I think it likely that those threats came from heterosexual men not transgender women?'Proof or gaslighting ?By 'transgender women' I assume you mean 'transgender men' claiming to be women.Have a read of a description of the protest by your gender fluid (whatever this means) friends."A trans-activist temper tantrumYesterday’s London demo was a carnival of misogyny and public urination".https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/20/a-trans-activist-temper-tantrum/Ms Hammond's post today shows how sensitive and peace loving some trans supporters can be.Not a bit like your gentle bearded trans friend I am sure.But the crux of the matter is this.Why would a man want to use women's facilities when he has his own ones specific for the same purpose and might be considered more suitable for his anatomy ? Might this not cause concern or embarrassment to females especially for young girls like my granddaughters (though I suspect you would think they should just grow up and 'get over themselves').Do you think the right to ignore the Court Ruling as many Labour MPs seem to want to do is a brave political stand or a democratic affront ?Or might all those males that want to use women's facilities just trying to be provocative ?Or do they want to do so for the sake of sexual titillation ?Interestingly I understand that the pro-trans march was co-joined in support by those claiming to be fighting for Palestinian rights another of your causes I believe.I did not realise Islam was so liberal when it comes to divergent sexuality and self-declared genderism !When is the next pro-trans march in Gaza ?

John Hawkes ● 71d

Mr Rose'The interesting question is how this absurd situation has been allowed to develop. I would suggest the following reasons:'The overriding reason in my view is twofold -1) The 'progressive', 'activist', 'protesting' Labour Party is now in power and finds that it has no economic policies that can make  the lives of the vast majority of the population any better.Its supporters know this but are afraid to point out that the 'Emperor has no clothes'.But we live in a society where people have the ability to air opinions to the wider world: "Thanks Putney Forum".2) And not being able to influence economic policy, the typical  leftist will take up social causes or those regarding the effect our or our allies' foreign policy have on the 'oppressed' in the wider world."We must do something about all this".And they have the time and the means to do so.So as you say, we get virtue signalling.For instance their continual attacks on Israel for its aggressive, racist and apartheid policies as if it were the most evil country in the world.And they 'fight' to defend transgender men (of which it is estimated there are some 200,000-500,000 in the UK's population of c.60 million) claiming they are cruelly oppressed or discriminated against; albeit discrimination laws would prevent this.As you point out, the fact the 'rights' of this small minority can negatively impact those of 50 % of the population that is female just shows how selfish and self-serving they are.Hopefully the new ruling will prove that common sense reigns as in reality it surely always did amongst the majority, and the trans lobby that campaigned over a non-existent issue of discrimination can get back in its box.

John Hawkes ● 75d

Mr Hawkes. (A quick response to E&OE.) I think you're making unfounded assumptions about my views. I'm in fact keeping an open mind on this. My quotation elsewhere about a transman with a beard was not that that person is likely or wants to do that but it shows there are perhaps unexpected consequences from this clarification of the law (The supreme court has interpreted existing laws not created or extended law.)Firstly, my background is mainly applied maths, physics with a bit of chemistry and astronomy thrown in. Biology is probably the least of my scientific knowledge but I guess the principles are still similar. Secondly, science isn't static, in the area of biology over the past few decades it's been transformed from a science doing categorisation of species from essentially visual idetentification and taxonomy to new, rigorous definitions based on DNA analysis; for example, including the separation of fungi from plants into their own, separate biological domain. The days of Carl Linnaeus's taxonomy - including his rather dubious definition of human races - is long gone. To my mind there are a lot of unknowns in the field of sex and sexuality: why are some attracted to others of the same or either sex, why are others uncomfortable in the bodies of the sex they were born in, and while the majority fit into the male/female binary model why does nature sometimes mix up chromosomes and hormones in a few?Some medical practitioners, biologists, chemists, etc consider sex/sexuality/gender is partly determined by hormones, neurological and epigenetic factors; as in most areas of science there's disagreements  There's also, the personal psychological aspects - homosexual attractions which are a desire not a choice and why would someone who's lived as a male for several decades in the armed forces decide to medically transition to female? Not something I understand but something others genuinely feel.Looking at art from previous generations: non binary is not a new phenomenon.Attitudes and knowledge are evolving- we now have gay marriages, and operations and certification for those wishing for gender realignment.It was made clear (or so it seemed to me) from this ruling that trans as well as women's rights still apply - so will we now have male, female, trans-male, trans-women hospital wards? I believe the term 'proportionate application' was used somewhere so perhaps the ruling wasn't so binary as it seems on first glance? (But I'm just going on reports of the ruling, ive not read it!)So, from a science and personal perspective I like to keep an open mind. Let's be honest, the biggest threats to women must be from heterosexual males rather than honest trans people? Also, sometimes i like to play "devils advocate" (although, obviously, the devil doesn't exist in atheism ...)After all, as I said once before, in a couple of decades or so we've gone from demonising homosexuals with 'section 28' to gay marriage; perhaps knowledge and attitudes of transitioning will change over the next few decades?My own mental model:
1. Sex based on chromosomes: predominately male-female, with a few intersex outliers.
2. Transformations in a mathematical sense:
mainly "null", then hormonal, biochemical, neurological, surgical.
3. Genders: Predominately heterosexual male-female then the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ spectrum (c/o Wikipedia).Probably wrong, but it helps me visualise it!Just to say, my recent biology is based on what I've read and a Planetary Sciences course - as my friend and OU tutor Roger says; why are we looking for intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy? Because we damn well sure haven't found it on earth yet! :-)

Michael Ixer ● 75d

The most egregious injustice remedied by the Supreme Court ruling lies in the area of sport where biological males are allowed  to compete in women’s events. The FA, for example, allows men identifying as female  to compete against women in the amateur game, which is not just unfair but dangerous. In 2023, for example, a transgender person called Francesca Needham caused a serious injury to an opponent in the Sheffield women’s league. Subsequently four teams refused to play against Needham’s team in protest.The interesting question is how this absurd situation has been allowed to develop. I would suggest the following reasons:1) A small minority of transgender females have cynically sought to exploit their male characteristics of speed and strength in order to obtain success in women’s sport.2) The majority of biological males participating in women’s sport do so on principle, regarding their participation as a sign of acceptance of their chosen gender and viewing exclusion as unfair discrimination.3) A number of woke individuals, who are not themselves transgender, have taken up the cause of the transgender lobby, seeing it as a way of signalling their virtue while forgetting that an effort to prevent discrimination against a minority can end up by discriminating against the majority.4) Cowardly administrators, fearing that their careers might be finished by an accusation of transphobia, have preferred to accommodate the demands of the transgender lobby rather than listen to the dictates of common sense.

Steven Rose ● 75d