Nobody can tell who is male and who is female anyway.

Unless there's something to inherit.

I love how "rules of male primogeniture remain unchanged" is being spun as progressivity.

This is what male privilege looks like.

It's not misogyny for the same reason that Simon will never need a gynaecologist. 

Why do you hate women so much, Davos?

Doesn't matter, Dux. The salient point here is that this person is male. The existence of a silly piece of paper saying that they are now female does nothing to change the rules of male primogeniture. Indeed, their older sister would not inherit the title even if she got a silly piece of paper saying she is now male.

And this is how we know that trans women do not experience misogyny: because they do not lose any male privilege after they transition.

The Gender Recognition Act, which refers to male and female as genders (contrary to what these words mean in all other species) but does not bother to define male, female or gender, takes the time to ensure that trans identifying males who stand to inherit a title do not lose out. 

Seems a bit of an odd priority to ensure that trans identifying male aristocrats are still considered male for the purposes of inheritance, but not to ensure that trans identifying male sex offenders who have committed sex offences against women are still considered male when it comes to which prison they should be housed in.

But I guess the members of the House of Lords who were involved in passing the legislation were more preoccupied with making sure that their younger sisters couldn't troll them by becoming legally male and stealing their titles than they were with the safety of vulnerable women.

I don't hate anyone, Davos.

It is not hatred to point out that male people cannot become female people.

Attempting to cast women in the role of the oppressor when they object to being redefined as people who perform feminine stereotypes so that male people can be admitted to their single sex spaces and sporting categories is hatred of women.

Do better.

Not confusing you with anyone, Davos. I see you.

If gender ideology were a stick of rock, it would have the words "biologically female people are worthless" running through it.

No of course I don't, Jethro.

It would have been their elder sisters, not their younger ones.

Oops, good point.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Sasha Jane Lowerson, the first woman to have won both the men's and the women's Australian longboard championships.

The first rule of gender ideology is that all the rules, and all the exceptions to the rules, benefit biologically male people and not biologically female people.

Message to Davos' wife: blink three times if you need rescuing.

All you really need to know is that they are describing this person as female and spinning this as some great leap of progress rather than episode 5692648694 of "penis people getting what they want".

The irony is that the Labour MP who defended this provision in the Gender Recognition Act as the bill was going through Parliament was none other than David Lammy, who recently described women who want single sex spaces as "dinosaurs who hoard rights".

You're the anti chill.

Since Chill is both a misogynist and a moron, I can only take this as a compliment.

He's not the only one.

A lot of gay people say precisely this. In particular, they say that the biggest threat to them at the moment comes from the TQIA+ lot (aka straight people).

I don't think gay people are a homogenous group any more than I think women are a homogenous group.

The only thing all gay people have in common is that they are same sex attracted.

G'wan has the right to a different opinion from the gay people I was talking about. He doesn't have the right not to be offended. (And neither do trans women when people point out that they are not women or lesbians.)

No Davos, a lot of them are saying that the biggest threat to them right now comes from gender ideology.

Heterosexual males LARPing as lesbians.

Actual lesbians being encouraged to cut their breasts off and "live as" men. 

The CEO of Stonewall implying that lesbians who don't want to date chicks with dicks are prejudiced and bigoted.

Homosexuality being redefined as "same gender attraction".

LGB people who want to start their own groups without all the self-obsessed, largely heterosexual "TQIA+" bandwagon jumpers being told they can't do that, and that there is "no LGB without the T", as if they need the church's permission to organise and advocate in their own self interest.

I'm not "straightsplaining". I am listening to gay people who think this ideology is dangerous, homophobic horse shit and I believe them.

You, on the other hand, are more than happy to mansplain womanhood.

If you believe that trans women are women your position is that "woman" is a gender identity that trans women have.

And "it's nothing to do with me" is your privilege talking.

You asked for men to stay out the trans debate 

Er, what? No I didn't. 

so you should extend the same courtesy to gay people

The people I am talking about want these issues to be widely discussed and publicised.

You asked for men to stay out the trans debate 

Er, what? No I didn't. 

so you should extend the same courtesy to gay people

The people I am talking about want these issues to be widely discussed and publicised.

Unfortunately we can't defeat this lunacy whilst people with brains remain silent, from fear of the consequences or a belief that it is nothing to do with them.

The voices of men like James Esses, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are important and necessary. (They're also far less likely to receive death threats for speaking out.)

Davos, anyone is welcome to participate in this debate.

If your contribution is to tell an actual woman that she is wrong about what a woman is, without being able to explain what you actually believe one is, however, then you will quite rightly be told to get in the fooking bin.

Nobody is asking you to stop saying it, however.

In fact, I would like you to keep saying it.

I would like all of you idiots to keep saying it.

I would like Keir Starmer to keep saying that it is wrong to say that women have a cervix. I would like Lisa Nandy to keep saying that male sex offenders should be accommodated in women's prisons if they so wish. I would like Nadia Whittome to keep telling everyone that people who cling stubbornly to the belief that sex is real despite attempts to re-educate them should be expelled from the Labour Party. I would like David Lammy to keep saying that women who want single sex spaces are rights hoarding dinosaurs but trans identifying male heirs who stand to inherit a baronetcy are "entitled from birth", and that with the right concoction of synthetic hormones and plastic surgery it is possible for a man to grow a cervix.

I would like sporting bodies to keep talking about how brave and stunning Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas and all the rest of the mediocre male cheats are.

I would like trans activists to keep accusing us of a "moral panic" for objecting to teenage girls having their healthy breasts cut off. I would like them to keep talking about how transplanted uteruses for trans women will soon be a thing. I would like them to keep referring to breastfeeding mothers as lactating parents and chestfeeders, whilst celebrating the trans "woman" "breastfeeding" "her" baby untried, untested artificially induced man juice from "her" manboobs and talking about how arousing "she" finds it.

I would like woke theatre companies and libraries to keep booking obvious nonces to teach small children about sex through the power of song and dance. 

It's all helpful to our cause.

have to say even i’m kind of surprised at how full throttle anna has gone off the rails into outright transphobia and homophobia recently

Don't you ever get bored with repeating the same content free sentences over and over again?

In what sense is it over, PS?

I think it is naive to assume that their struggles are over, to be honest.

I don't know to what extent they have physically altered their body, but hormones and surgery have long lasting physical and mental consequences. 

Then there is what happens in old age. Studies show that transgender people with dementia often forget that they transitioned and find their altered bodies very distressing. Nobody really knows how to help them.

And then I think there's the fact that trans activists have gone too far with their demands and a backlash is coming, which will probably have negative consequences for ordinary trans people just trying to quietly live their lives.

I would expect theirs to be a lifelong struggle.

With all due respect, PS, what it is like to be in a trans person's shoes should not be my, or any other woman's problem.

I don't care how they present to the world, what pronouns they use or what they do in their private lives. I hope they find a way of managing their dysphoria as best they can, and I don't think they should be discriminated against for their gender identity.

I just don't think that the rest of society's responsibility to accommodate them extends to denying women the right to their own single sex spaces and sporting categories, and even the right to define themselves and self organise in a way that doesn't include male people.

Have whatever gender identity you like, but don't make it the rest of society's problem. And don't pretend that it is an identity you share with other people, whether they agree or not, and whether they like it or not.

I'd also like someone to come up with one example of where gender ideology benefits female people and is harmful or neutral for male people.

Because male athletes in women's sports = harmful to female people, neutral or positive for male people.

Male sex offenders in women's prisons = harmful to female people, neutral or positive for male people.

Male people using women's toilets and changing facilities = harmful to female people, neutral or positive for male people.

Trans women still being able to inherit titles under male primogeniture = positive for male people, negative for female people.

Trans identifying youth being given hormones and referred for surgery without appropriate safeguarding = harmful to all but vast majority of them are female.

Crimes committed by trans identifying males being recorded and reported as women's crimes = harmful to female people, positive for male people.

Single sex rape therapy groups all being proudly trans inclusive = harmful to female people, neutral for male people.

I literally cannot think of a single example where it is the other way round. 

I really wasn’t trying to mock you rather than cause you to pause and see if you can find room for a more inclusive stance not incompatible with your technical standpoint. I think there’s room for both. 

I think my inclusive stance goes as far as respecting people's identities and pronouns providing they haven't harmed anyone, believing that we should all be more accepting of gender non conformity, and believing that something needs to be done about toilets. (All new builds should have a third, unisex option, existing facilities should be retrofitted where possible.)

I can see no argument whatsoever for women's sport being inclusive of male athletes. If trans identifying female athletes can compete in the correct sex category, so can Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard. 

And no male inmates in women's prisons, ever. I would be supportive of men's prisons being reconfigured to separate vulnerable male prisoners from those likely to harm them. Vulnerable male prisoners includes, but is not limited to, trans women.

I don't think my stance is unreasonable.

I think the question to ask is this: does including trans women in this context result in exclusion of or harm to women?

If yes, it is not inclusive.

I'm pregnant, you fvckwit.

What does your experience have to do with me?

Again, as it's not seemingly not clear to you (albeit I don't know how it's not), I was talking about me. Hence reference to 'my experience'.

It is very clear that you were insinuating that I have a drink problem because there is no other explanation for my passionate belief that women should not be redefined as whatever the hell men want them to be.

Thank you, lurker!

Thank you. Fingers crossed eh!

Even as the most ardent friend of The Trans People, if you claim to be similarly interested in protecting the rights of women, surely you can see something a smidge problematic about something that is done / granted to a biological male being hailed as a victory or some sort of progress for biological women?

I mean, this problem is the very epitome of a first world problem, and I don't think anybody much cares which overprivileged toff inherits a title and the right to sit in the ridiculously anachronistic unelected upper chamber.

But I do find the fact that they took the time to carve out this particular exception, to ensure that no male "entitled from birth" could be deprived of his inheritance either by becoming legally a woman or by his sister becoming legally a man, and yet didn't see fit to carve out any exceptions for things like male sex offenders not being allowed to self identify into women's prisons... I mean, it says it all really, doesn't it?

They know who is male and who is female. Whatever labels people use to describe themselves, the males will always have the privilege and the females will always be second class citizens whose rights are unimportant.

I didn't understand this bit, are the vast majority of trans folk female to male rather than the opposite? Or just the vast majority of those who are prescribed hormones and surgery while minors?

Among the younger generation, those claiming transgender identities are overwhelmingly girls wanting to be boys.

I reckon all women could have a very good stab at guessing why. (My view is that this is the generation who all saw women being abused and degraded in online porn on smartphones before they were out of primary school and they think being an adult woman looks fvcking horrific and are desperate to opt out of it.)

But the TRAs are all like, nothing to see here. It just means more people are coming out because trans people are more accepted now. But also the most persecuted minority ever.