[Abernathy]

A considered contribution from Matthew D'Ancona, here.

The mania of the TRAs got us nowhere and did the trans community no favours at all. Politicians dithered, appeased or hid. But the calm expertise of Cass and now the juristic wisdom of the Supreme Court have offered a path forward.
It is a path of civility, rooted in clinical experience and jurisprudence rather than ideology. It takes account of rights old and new and deploys calm and measured language to achieve clarity, but also to reassure those who feel vulnerable, disenfranchised or humiliated. It is the splendid opposite of the polarised, performative politics that is now so dominant, on right and left.
There aren’t many reasons at present to feel that Britain is leading the way – but this is one of them. It is how democracies survive and prosper. It plots a route out of screaming matches, virtue signalling and tribalism. It calls upon us all to be decent, adult, mindful of evidence rather than decibels, clicks and smug assumptions.
This is, in other words, that rarest of things: a moment of authentic opportunity. Let’s not squander it.

https://archive.is/20250421230534/https ... et-so-bad/

[Abernathy]

A considered contribution from Matthew D'Ancona, here.

The mania of the TRAs got us nowhere and did the trans community no favours at all. Politicians dithered, appeased or hid. But the calm expertise of Cass and now the juristic wisdom of the Supreme Court have offered a path forward.
It is a path of civility, rooted in clinical experience and jurisprudence rather than ideology. It takes account of rights old and new and deploys calm and measured language to achieve clarity, but also to reassure those who feel vulnerable, disenfranchised or humiliated. It is the splendid opposite of the polarised, performative politics that is now so dominant, on right and left.
There aren’t many reasons at present to feel that Britain is leading the way – but this is one of them. It is how democracies survive and prosper. It plots a route out of screaming matches, virtue signalling and tribalism. It calls upon us all to be decent, adult, mindful of evidence rather than decibels, clicks and smug assumptions.
This is, in other words, that rarest of things: a moment of authentic opportunity. Let’s not squander it.

https://archive.is/20250421230534/https ... et-so-bad/

[Tubby Isaacs]

That reminds me a bit of the Viz cartoon Victor Mature. It's easy to say how sensible we are.

I don't see any clear way forward. What compromise can there be between people who want trans women to use women's changing rooms, and people who don't? Or between people who support the availability of puberty blockers, and those who don't? There simply isn't an evidence base accepted by both sides, least of all Cass. It's been accepted by Labour and the SNP in respective governments, but that's not the same thing.

[Abernathy]

This might be a bit tangential, but have you ever considered what the thinking behind gender (or sex) segregated changing rooms, toilets, or other facilities is, or was? Is it just to spare peoples' blushes, or is it about a fundamental fear or risk of sexual assaults, principally by males perpetrated on females?

If the latter, has it got a bit out of hand? Has it been exacerbated almost beyond all reason by the continuing public angst around gender identity ? I'm not saying that it definitely has. Just considering the possibility.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't think it makes much difference really. If enough people are strongly against people with male genitalia changing in women's facilities then they're against it and hard to get away from it. You can persuade some women, no doubt, with "the real issue is male violence, not trans women" but probably not that much. I don't see how these two positions can compromise at all.

I don't know if there's some way forward on an issue by issue basis. Women's toilets, I presume, are lots of sit down loos. Trans women using those seems to be a much easier thing to argue for than trans women in women's changing rooms, where (if they're anything like men's changing rooms) there are a couple of cubicles but mostly it's changing in an open space. My guess is that "issue by issue" will satisfy even fewer people.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've been wondering if there's some sort of philosophical way forward whereby trans people are thought of as "sui generis", But I read a post (reposted by Jonathan Portes, who I follow) that strongly rejected the idea that trans people should be shunted off into special facilities like gender neutral toilets, and I could see the point. So I think that's a dead end.

[Andy McDandy]

I put this to some trans friends. Their reply was broadly "You are who you feel you are, and we can spot a pisstaker from miles away".

Personally I think the entire 'debate' is a load of bollocks, because the real question isn't so much about women's safety or biological definitions, but do wankers feel emboldened enough or that it's socially acceptable to treat anyone they consider weird, like shit in public?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think the cis women's safety aspect is massively overrated, and trans women's safety is overlooked . But if women (as they seem to, though not as much as men) hold this hardline position, I think it is very difficult. I don't think it can be anything but heated.

[Crabcakes]

You know how loads of those US evangelicals turn out to be the worst people ever?

Well…

[Abernathy]

I put this to some trans friends. Their reply was broadly "You are who you feel you are, and we can spot a pisstaker from miles away".

Personally I think the entire 'debate' is a load of bollocks, because the real question isn't so much about women's safety or biological definitions, but do wankers feel emboldened enough or that it's socially acceptable to treat anyone they consider weird, like shit in public?