Legally (just) Sex is Immutable, But is the Law Impermeable?

Guest essay by Scottish Casandra

The WordPress blogosphere echoes with more voices than just bloggers.

Many interesting and articulate people comment and take part in detailed and often protracted discussions about issues raised in blogs. These are often as interesting as the original post and no blogger would deny that a healthy string of comments after a post adds value their site. Of course I understand why a person would want only to read posts from their favourite bloggers and to comment, but not to wish to have a blog of their own. Nevertheless, I feel that should such a person have something more substantial to contribute, then there should be space available for them to do so. I have therefore decided to make space available at this blog for such people, under the rubric of the shiteness of being Scottish.

LorCal, who also writes as The Scottish Casandra, is one of the most impressive and outspoken members of the blogosphere commentariat. Her opinions are always based on solid experience and good reason and she is in command of wide spectrum of knowledge. She is also passionate and tenacious, qualities I admire greatly, and has become well known for putting bloggers on the spot and giving others pause for thought.


Apart from continuous government prevarication about the so called constitutional question, obscene structural unequal distribution of wealth and land ownership, poverty, social deprivation, moronic sectarianism and all the rest, one of the most bizarre shitenesses of being Scottish right now arises in the wake of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA).

Regular readers will know that I have no time for ideologies of whatever hue being used as the basis for social policy and that I believe identity politics to be fundamentally incoherent, most crucially because identity has no substance. There is no id entity. Honest introspection can only conclude that our mental lives are in continuous processes of change. Identity is created and negotiated infinitely and infinitesimally throughout ordinary life as we look for stuff on the outside that chimes in some way with what it feels on the inside.

Politics should, I believe, be based on critical pragmatism, be directed towards the common good and work always with the material circumstances of existence, only one effect of which is the unique feelings of individuality we all experience. Politics should never deny or restrict this uniqueness, nor demand that being or experience be anything at all, but politics cannot be the summation of individual experience. The duty of politicians is to work pragmatically for the common good, preferably with humility and a healthy understanding of world history and human psychology.

In the real world however, politicians are more commonly in it to line their own pockets, to dish out backhanders to their pals, to enjoy the prestige of power or pedal some dodgy ideology. And quite often, despite the good intentions of politicians with genuine notions of doing good, they are sucked into self perpetuating systems of sinecure and patronage while their good intentions line the road to their hellish consequences.

The particular manifestation of identity politics that has become popular among those who see themselves as radical or, quaintly, “left wing” is based on gender. Sadly, these people also regard anybody who has anything critical to say to their ideas as “right wing” so that public discourse becomes the usual sectarian pile on, now with a frisson of generational conflict, both within feminism and more generally in the ongoing struggle against patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

Although I touched upon these matters earlier in the year in a post about being a dinosaur, I have found it very difficult to contribute to this debate, because anything I say is pulled into the culture wars. All questions and opinions are polarised between “gender ideology” and “gender critical theory” with no room for anything else. Under these conditions I become so enraged by the stupidity of it all, that I have to walk on by.


LorCal on the other hand has no qualms and writes with a level head. She is happy to throw herself into the debate with passion and here she presents serious questions, which we would be wise to reflect upon, to take into our daily experience and to use as a lens to observe the politicians we are allowing to engineer future social policy.


IDENTITY could be said to be crucial to human beings, and it comes in all forms, from individual identity to family identity to national identity to racial identity to ethnic identity and all forms in between and beyond.  The identity that has come under fire in recent years is the identity of being an adult human female – known until recently as “woman”.

What if the identity you think you are cannot possibly BE, by all the known laws of nature, biology and science?  What harm can that ‘false’ belief have on you and those around you, on people you do not even know, but who will be affected by your identity superseding theirs that has existed for millennia?  This is the real problem that the trans lobby has yet to come to grips with: how can we as human beings, accept psychologically a proposition that offends every rational sense, when it may cause untold harm to many more people than would be caused by pointing out the lie?

This, essentially, is the dilemma that faced Winston Smith in Orwell’s ‘1984’, and for which he was broken psychologically and physically, in a state that was totalitarian at its roots, until he was willing to accept that 2+2 = 5.  We are living in a very Scottish facsimile of that state now, in 2021, albeit the law protects us – for now, at least.

We are being told that men can become women and women men, when every sense screams out that it cannot be, that we are a dimorphic species and that our biological sex is contained deep in our cell structure, in our genes.  Furthermore, we are being told, those of us who are female, that we are, as women and girls, a subset of the female sex, and we are being told this by men who claim they are women.

We don’t live in an ideal world, which is why, at the end of the day, third spaces are the only logical answer to the stand-off between female spaces and rights and trans spaces and rights.  So why do so many trans women, in particular, and their allies, rail against third spaces?  Validation must be the answer, that and a determination to indulge a paraphilia in women’s spaces.  When did validation become a human right?  When did indulging a paraphilia? 

What appears to be happening is that people who have paraphilic tendencies (MtF category) and who often refuse to believe that they have this condition in the form of autogynephilia (sexual love of oneself as a woman, but, crucially, not as a strong woman, rather as a weak, submissive one) or who will not admit that they have it even while they know perfectly well that they do, are the vanguard of a movement that might yet see prohibitive laws cast down – for the ultimate benefit of sexual predators.  Autogynephilia has been studied in depth by a number of psychologists, including Ray Blanchard, the godfather of sexual studies in the latter part of the 20th century, and whose work is the definitive study on this condition – some homosexual autogynephiles, but the majority heterosexual autogynephiles.  He did not think that it was, per se, a condition dangerous to others.  Time and knowledge have moved on, of course, and we now accept that families can be destroyed by a paraphilia in its midst.

If no one was to be harmed in any way by this paraphilia, if no one else’s spaces and rights were part of the equation, few would turn a hair, as with the end of S28 and the opening of the door to wide public acceptance of homosexuality. However, it is precisely because women and girls are being told to share their sex-based spaces and rights with (very likely) autogynephilic men that this is not at all like S28 and the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex attraction. The trans lobby is not asking per se for trans rights, which they already have; they are demanding that we overturn millennia of biological sex, accept them uncritically on their own definition of themselves as actual women and welcome them into female spaces and rights without a murmur.

This is where the battle ground lies, because women fought hard and long for their sex-based public spaces and their rights and concessions on the very basis that their needs were not being met, that they required spaces and public institutions that did not include men, any men – some of whom being the very reason that they were needed in the first place. Women needed the vote to elect people (often women, if female needs were to be addressed) who would represent their views and needs in parliament.

How can any man know what women need as they go through female puberty, give birth, as they menstruate (period products were considered luxury goods until very recently), as they go through the menopause, as they age?  Some things in their lives will not differ from men’s experiences, but so many will. There are reasons why ‘trans children’ have to exist that have nothing to do with body dysphoria, and everything to do with validation – a heartless and cynical exploitation of the young to justify an ideology.

Most body dysphoric transsexuals – and it is they who are the tiny minority that is spoken of (we simply do not know how many autogynephilic heterosexuals there are in Scotland) – do not wish to access female spaces and rights, and most appear to actually support gender critical theory and women’s biological reality.  They know and acknowledge that they are ‘trans women’, not women, so, already, we have different groups of trans women.

The vast majority of ‘trans women’ are biological men, so they have had to adopt a narrative that their penises are ‘ladydicks’, which might be okay if they kept that definition to themselves and did not also compel others, notably women and lesbian women, to accept them as such.  We have to talk about the potential for deep psychological harm, separate from the potential physical harm that allowing natal males into women’s spaces will cause to women and girls. The ‘ladydick’ phenomenon makes a total mockery of women’s anatomy and lesbian women’s same-sex attracted reality that some trans women want to overturn.

J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea (Northwestern University, Canada) in February 2007: “… currently, the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men’s bodies. This understanding has little scientific basis, however, and is inconsistent with clinical observations. Ray Blanchard has shown that there are two distinct subtypes of MtF transsexuals. Members of one subtype, homosexual transsexuals, are best understood as a type of homosexual male. The other subtype, autogynephilic transsexuals, is motivated by the erotic desire to become women. The persistence of the predominant cultural understanding, while explicable, is damaging to science and to many transsexuals… ”

“Enforcing men’s sexual rights in international human rights law”: Sheila Jeffreys, June 2018: “… Self-ID [will mean] that any man who cross-dresses on the weekend, say, or makes no changes to his appearance and retains both penis and beard, can be legally recognized as a woman if he demands this… … it is being cited in the projected new legislation in Scotland, which will allow men to self-identify as women, as justification… ”

It is already in operation in women’s prisons, after the fact (of the crime, almost always a sex crime) and before the law has even been introduced, let alone changed.

The document from the Scottish government about their proposals to change the requirement for ‘gender’ recognition certificates specifically states: The view of the Scottish Government is that the 2004 Act requirements are unnecessarily intrusive and do not reflect the best practice now embodied in the Yogyakarta Principles and Resolution 2048 (Scottish Government, 2017).

In practice, GRCs will become unnecessary as self-ID will render them obsolete except as administrative tools.  Many women are now looking at the 2004 GRA as being the line in the sand, and are demanding its repeal: same sex marriage is now law; data protection ensures non-disclosure of personal information; and so on.  Its continued existence is being interpreted by many women as meaning that it is to be the springboard for even more reforms and even greater incursion into women’s rights, far beyond their sex-based spaces.

2010 EQUALITY ACT PROTECTED CATEGORIES – Note: gender reassignment has no limits, and may constitute both full transition and surgery, and no change at all, according to the Stonewall doctrine, which is preempting the law yet again.  Both Sex and Gender Reassignment (not identity) are protected characteristics, albeit women’s spaces and rights can be protected even from the trans reassigned if the action is proportionate to achieve the end, but we have seen how permeable women spaces and rights are when the law can be preempted at will by trans women – and the law does nothing, as in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre case.  Stonewall assists the police in the area of trans issue.

The appropriation of women and girls’ spaces is, at best, a colonisation of existing sex-based spaces and rights.  It is no different from imperialism and invasion of others’ territory for the invaders’ benefit and to the utter detriment of those being colonised.  If paraphilic men are allowed to drag – and I use the word judiciously – their paraphilias and fetishes into the public space, what is to prevent them living out their fantasies in front of unwilling and non-consenting women and girls currently protected in law?

Perhaps the politicians would also care to explain how open access could possibly dovetail with existing laws against public exposure of the genitals and other even less salubrious activities like public masturbation, for example?  What about rape?  Can you legally rape with a ‘ladydick’, because, if a trans woman is actually a woman in law, then the penis must be a vagina, as they claim.  Will sexual offences laws all have to be repealed?  That must be the logical conclusion.  What about consent or age barriers?  Will these laws also be brought down to dovetail with the trans lobby’s demands for access because, if you are allowed by law to show your male genitals to young, underage girls in female spaces, and you are classed legally as a female, then it cannot also be illegal to do so?

Everyone’s consent will also have to be presumed, along with women’s, even when minor females are deemed by law to be unable to consent.  The presumption of paedophilia under the law must also be jettisoned because the trans woman’s right to expose her ‘ladydick’ must be presumed to take precedence over the female child’s age. Are these existing laws against public sexual behaviour to be repealed so that even more danger can be visited upon children and women?

Repeal of all prohibitive and preventative sexual laws must be the next step, logical conclusion, so that those who, now, raise actions against certain perceived breaches of the law or who expect the police to bring a case against an alleged perpetrator, will have no redress or even means of redress since no law will have been breached and no case will require to be answered if there are no laws against these things – these things that could never happen anyway, we are assured.  Except they do. These are matters for jurisprudence, and a few souls are beginning to posit these questions.

When you allow anyone, male or female, to pull, legally, their private, erotic fantasies into the light of public exposure and force us all to participate in them against our will, to accept a patent biological and scientific untruth, you are opening up a whole can of worms as never before in modern society: enforced compliance in a ‘democratic’ state.  People are, more or less, allowed to do what they like in private with consenting partners who are adults, and the state does not interfere.  For the first time in the history of the modern Western world, the state – and the law that legitimises that state – will be, potentially, forcing unwilling women and female children into roles as extras in the fantasies of paraphilics and, far worse, opportunistic sexual predators enabled by the self-ID laxity.

Autogynephilia is no longer deemed to be ‘harmless’: what the trans lobby and its activists do not want the public to know about is the testimony of many so-called ‘trans widows’ who have been at the receiving end of these men’s paraphilia, where boundary after boundary was crossed in the paraphilic’s pursuit of his own pleasure (note the implicit narcissism). In truth, families have been destroyed by this behaviour through the pushing of boundaries to breaking point. If it can happen in the private sphere, why not the public sphere, too? Heterosexual autogynephilia can be extremely destructive of those around the paraphilic trans woman, as lesbian women and other women are discovering.

A narcissistic personality may accompany autogynephilia (as Blanchard and others noted) and it has little empathy for those forced unwillingly to participate as extras in its own private sexual realm. Will we discover that some of these trans women wish to masturbate in women’s spaces (subject to the criminal law at present) as some of these ‘trans women’ already boast on social media they will do; that they will get erections in front of little girls (subject to the criminal law at present) as occurred in the WiSpa incident in the States?  And that’s not harmful?  Will the law venture into the field of human choice of sexual partner and force lesbian women to partner trans women, as some trans women demand?  What exactly is the legal definition of ‘harm’ these days?

Distress and anxiety, caused by lack of privacy and dignity in shared spaces, previously their single-sex spaces, are not harmful to females?  Trying to change your pad or tampon noiselessly, knowing that a trans woman is next door and might hear you (menstruation is a fetish, too, that some paraphilic men imitate) and holding in your urine all day (because listening to females peeing is yet another) is not harmful, both physically and emotionally?  Being reduced to a subset of your own sex is not psychologically harmful to females?

Will the laws that constrain and restrain sexual behaviours and sexual predators be brought down to accommodate the push against all boundaries that queer theory advocates – ostensibly in the name of greater personal and sexual freedom?  What is the alternative if trans rights supersede women’s rights?  On what basis can we say, legally, this trans woman, but not that one?  We can’t.  So, we let all-comers (self-ID) in or, alternatively, we recreate all public spaces as unigender, eliminating biological sex entirely?

Is the law flexible enough to accommodate all trans women and all trans men in spaces and rights that are universal?  Hmmm… What about the threat that some men pose to females?  We disregard that?  How can we tell who is a threat and who is not a threat?  A trans woman or any man cannot be convicted of exhibitionism if the law allows her/him to undress in female spaces (now) and unigender spaces (in the future)?  Ergo, back we come to the law, because only prohibitive/preventative laws can protect women and girls and children, and back we come to the beginning and the reason why adult female spaces and rights need to be protected by law.

So, why were women exempted from the Scottish Hate Crime legislation – which is, in itself a curtailment of freedom of speech or a great liberator, depending on your viewpoint?  Because they would be protected from misogyny and naked sexism (based on sex) must be the answer.  Nothing else makes sense when women require to be cowed into compliance in order to push this stuff through, and they must have nowhere to turn for help or comfort or hope.  The promise of a later special piece of legislation is patent obfuscation because it is unlikely to appear before the GRA reform is in place, on a par with: we will have a referendum after the pandemic and its aftermath.

Even if every trans woman was a model of love for her fellow subset of cis women, what about the sexual predators that the trans lobby will enable, through their vanguard actions, to access women’s spaces and rights when, first, GRA reform comes in, with self-ID, and secondly, when, one by one, laws are felled to reflect the trans lobby’s demands?  Oh, there will be more demands.  Lots more.  Access is just the start.  How are they going to protected trans women against the sexual predators they will have enabled to gain access to female sex-based spaces?  Aren’t they always telling us about how victimised they are in comparison with ‘cis’ women?

Will having a ‘ladydick’ save them from that ‘fate worse than death’?  More to the point, will the law save the rest of us from the almost entirely middle-class, pseudo radical, authoritarian control fest of masculinity that is the trans gender movement?  Women, know your place – which apparently is not in your own sex-based spaces and rights, but somewhere south of that bottom rung.  The trans identity war on women is nothing more or less than misogyny and sexism wrapped in a shiny, new, rainbow-coloured wrapping paper with a ribbon (not a Suffragette one) saying: please be kind.

All references, etc. may be Googled or are to be found on the Scottish Government website.

© LornCal, 2021


Comments are invited and polite discussion encouraged.

All comments are however moderated and any that breach the complex ethics of internet conversation will be edited or deleted.

If you would like to write something under the general rubric of the shiteness of being Scottish, please get in touch with a proposal using dncnspnc at gmail dot com.

Love and Peace.

Author: Duncan Spence

Mountaineer, retired bicycle messenger, philosopher, wordsmith, Dutch translator.

25 thoughts on “Legally (just) Sex is Immutable, But is the Law Impermeable?”

  1. While I do not understamd all of the arguments here, particularly those from Lorncal and Jeggit, and am not familiar with the refernces they cite, I am grateful to duncanspence for allowing a lengthy and mature debate on this thorny topic.
    One thing I have learned from this is the idea of women being reduced to ‘a sub-set of their own sex’, which is a useful concept that will resonate with many women and may well be deployed in argument.
    For now, I intent to re-read the discussion when i have more time to digest it and try to understand more.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi, arayner, your response is exactly what is hoped for: going off and finding out more about topics of discussion. That is what is missing today, critical thinking and being willing to think beyond the herd mass thought process. All learning now appears to be child/student centred and it has lost the ability to give young people experience in proper debate, rote learning where applicable (it was always applicable, up to a point, in tables, in spelling, etc.) and to think critically about everything – not being a conspiracy theorist, but just being able to separate out the various strands of argument and to see whether they coalesce or collide.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. No reply to my comment on this post/thread from Jeggit, except to be sent a reprisal of his own several blogs on the trans v GC feminist issue.

    I read them all over again very carefully. Distilled down to their essence, they are: women, be kind; women know your place; and women you can’t read, can’t form an argument; are too uneducated to be able to understand complex ideas.

    I posit the question again: why are women kept out of the RC priesthood? A simple answer that everyone (everyman/woman) reading this blog can understand will suffice without going into impenetrable doctrine and scripture and/or screeds of Latin. Are some instances of gatekeeping more equal than others? Why? Some women might feel they were born to be priests? Is it biological essentialism that says they can’t be?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I think the juxtaposition of the two examples is an interesting one because, in each instance, there is no philosophical reason why, on the one hand, trans women cannot enter female spaces and rights and, on the other, why women cannot joining the RC priesthood. Saying that a woman might have a life-long desire to be, and belief that she was born to be, a priest, would cut no ice, and, as an individual woman, I respect those boundaries while seeing no reason except one particular interpretation of doctrine and scripture for why that situation pertains. I see no lobby creating a stushie on behalf of women, or demanding that canonical laws be changed to suit women. Many trans women and their allies feel no such respect for women’s boundaries which have been lain down for very practical reasons. It could be construed as hypocrisy. At the end of the day, my own opinion is that women and girls (and children) are of much less importance to many men than themselves and their endeavours, and may be safely sacrificed. The problem is that if this passes, it will prove to be hugely detrimental to men, too. So many just don’t see it yet. Vercingetorix again. No statue to those women and children he sacrificed for nothing. Och well, never mind, Duncan. Thank you, anyway.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Hi Duncan – Thank you for inviting me to the discussion. I don’t really know what I can add, but in the spirit of online ecumenism I will perhaps make a couple of observations and maybe add some comment to these.

    “In the real world however, politicians are more commonly in it to line their own pockets, to dish out backhanders to their pals, to enjoy the prestige of power or pedal some dodgy ideology.”

    This strikes me as a populist statement. It assumes without evidence that most politicians are corrupt and so contribute to the erosion of the body politic. In my gut, I share this negative opinion of politics and politicians. However, we must take these assumptions with a pinch of salt. We do not know these things (for sure) and we do not speak on behalf of everyone (a hallmark of populism – see Jan-Werner Muller)

    “We are being told that men can become women and women men, when every sense screams out that it cannot be, that we are a dimorphic species and that our biological sex is contained deep in our cell structure, in our genes. Furthermore, we are being told, those of us who are female, that we are, as women and girls, a subset of the female sex, and we are being told this by men who claim they are women.”

    The guest essay begins by begging the question; rather than presenting evidence to make a case, it assumes its own premise and moves on from there. Of course, this says nothing of the veracity of the case. It is simply an observation.

    “Validation must be the answer, that and a determination to indulge a paraphilia in women’s spaces. When did validation become a human right? When did indulging a paraphilia?”

    Why must it? Why must we leap to this conclusion? No evidence or analysis or indeed critical discussion has been involved, so why must this be the reason? I am going to assume the contributors in this article have some academic training and point out that this is a poor form of argumentation. What I am seeing is uncritically accepted prepositions used to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion. Again, this says nothing of the veracity of the case. It might all be true. But it would come apart at the first academic critique. There is a mass of literature available on these subjects and perhaps we should be surveying this literature before constructing cases like this.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I shall leave LorCal to respond to your remarks about the sections you pluck from her text.
      It is always easy to take one section of a text and to judge it. The bit you slice out of mine could indeed be judged to be populist, iff it were taken alone as the basis for a further polemic. But it is not. It is part of an argument against individualism and is bookended by another statement about the ideals or principles of politics and one about systems of power.
      Given that you seem concerned about academic standards, it seems a bit odd that you would fail to see how this argument is constructed and appear to believe that your judgement of this one snippet allows you to dismiss the whole presentation.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Oh I certainly do not dismiss the presentation. Given the seriousness of the issue as a whole, it would be foolish to dismiss it. We may have learned very different academic rules, perhaps quoting sections as examples wasn’t done in your training. It was in mine. What I can’t do is provide a sentence by sentence criticism of your work. I don’t have the time or the inclination. But I will say this: I sense, perhaps wrongly, a mood of hostility here. I am sick and tired of the hostility in this entire “debate.” I have seen antisemitism and Islamophobia, I have received personal abuse and insult, and I have received threats. Now, if we want to continue hostile moods here, my advice is to leave me alone. I am more than happy to discuss and share my thoughts. But I’m not going to scrap with anyone else who imagines they have mastered this discussion. It is infantile. Are these acceptable terms of engagement?

      Like

    3. I have thought long and hard about how to respond to this.

      My first reaction was to pause at the phrase “quoting sections as examples wasn’t done in your training. It was in mine.”

      To which I wondered what you meant by training and thought to respond with a longwinded story about different intellectual traditions followed by: “of course, but I would always try to do so in context”. The point I was making was that I do not believe you have done this to the bit of the above post I wrote. From where I was sitting you appeared to have done no more than taken a sentence or two from the introductory bit to LorCal’s piece to be an example populism, to which you had already given a negative value.

      After this I thought that I had no desire for you to offer a line by line criticism of my work. Nor that I had ever indicated that I might want such a thing. I do not believe this would be a productive use of anybody’s time. I write not to present propositions in a row that might be adjudicated according to the academic standards of the day, but to take readers on a journey. If on the way there are general observations, then these are simply opinions, expressed in that way at that moment of the text in order to carry forward the narrative. I am not an academic.

      I am very sorry you sense hostility. I feel the very opposite of hostility towards you. I can understand why you are fed up with hostility though, you have put yourself out there, as an already prominent figure in the blogosphere, and mixed it with what I call the shiteness of being Scottish. I think in particular your attempt to straddle the divide and relativise the poles has made you enemies on both sides. If it is any comfort, I have some experience of this in different contexts. I too wish that it were otherwise.

      Please do not misunderstand my intention. I do not believe I have mastered any discussion. What a preposterous idea! Discussion must always carry on. This is why I have given LorCal the space here to express her opinions and to contribute to discussion. I am perfectly prepared to host any other who does not normally blog but who has something to say about the shiteness of being Scottish.

      There are of course differences between us. I have no desire to experience these as anything but positive. Apart from the fact that you are an academic and I am not, that I am just a reader and writer of texts, at most perhaps some sort of independent intellectual, we have more in common that might appear. I am aware of your faith, and respect this. You are perhaps unaware of my commitment to Buddhist practice and mind training, which, however different from your own intellectual tradition is firmly based on love and compassion.

      In an intellectual context, I feel that compassion turns in practice towards clearly listening to what another person believes/thinks/feels/etc, if necessary by asking penetrating questions, and to begin to understand why that person is as they are, without judgement. It is a high bar perhaps, but I set it only for myself and expect others to act only as they do.

      I hope this clarifies.

      Like

    4. Jeggit:

      “… We are being told that men can become women and women men, when every sense screams out that it cannot be, that we are a dimorphic species and that our biological sex is contained deep in our cell structure, in our genes. Furthermore, we are being told, those of us who are female, that we are, as women and girls, a subset of the female sex, and we are being told this by men who claim they are women… ”

      Are we not being told that men can become women? If not, what are we being told, Jeggit? Where is the scientific evidence to overturn millennia of perceived knowledge about the two sexes: that we are not a dimorphic species? Are you stating here that our sex is not evidence in our cell structure, in our genes, and that, furthermore, the brain also compromises those same cells, those same genes? Where is your evidence? In most instances of law change, some form of evidence for the change is advanced. None has been advanced here. If we are being classified as ‘cis’ women, rather than women, we become a subset of our own sex – how could it be otherwise?

      No, I am not assuming the premise; I am assuming the biological/scientific/historical evidence for the premise, which is entirely different. I have proffered the premise that men are men and women are women which has stood for millennia and have goe on, I hope to ask questions about why that has changed now to satisfy a supposed handful of people who claim that they can actually, in reality change sex.

      “… Validation must be the answer, that and a determination to indulge a paraphilia in women’s spaces. When did validation become a human right? When did indulging a paraphilia?…”

      Why must it? Do you offer us other reasons why men might wish to enter female spaces, apart from validation and parapahilia? Safety? Safety could be achieved easily by establishing third spaces. Third spaces could be achieved by campaigning and raising funds. How much does Stonewall raise again? Why is rage and silencing the answer to any queries about why men want to access female spaces and rights? What is it about female spaces and rights that attract these men who claim to be women? Here, I would draw a distinction between trans women (usually fully transitioned, but not always) who have no such ambitions to access female spaces and rights and those who do make these demands. They are both part of the trans women community. What is it that separates them?

      I give examples of the studies done by psychologists and sexologists and cite their findings. I offer an academic’s related, but different findings, based on wider, beyond trans, studies of sexual behaviour in males. I did not claim that this piece was an academic tome: it is a piece written for a blog. I have read, and listened to, reams of information, but I keep coming back to the question: why do so many of these men want access to women’s spaces and rights? Why do they want to make women and girls feel uncomfortable? Why do they want us to give up our spaces and rights to them?

      Why do some men find menstruation fascinating and pretend that they are menstruating? Why do some men get a kick out of listening to women pee? Why do some men wear women’s vaginas and breasts in latex? That is the problem with self-ID: it does not allow us to critique these men’s sexual reasons for wanting access. We are told that they are harmless; that it must follow, then, that all men must be harmless. Is it logical and reasonable to make that assumption when well over a hundred women die at the hands of men every year; when rape and sexual assault figures show that women and girls are not safe?

      I feel genuine sympathy for men who are so driven by their paraphilia, or are so unhappy in their skin, through body/gender dysphoria, that they cannot accept themselves as they are and desire surgery to make themselves feel more comfortable. I also believe that they need to be helped with counselling and care, that our children should be given the counselling and care they need instead of being propelled into transition, that homosexuality should not be treated with conversion therapy or denial or disgust.

      What do any of those things have to do with women’s spaces and rights? They are perfectly achievable, as is an easier route to a Gender Recognition Certificate, without ever changing the law on women’s spaces and rights. Again, I ask, as I asked you in your own blog, and which you never once deigned to answer: why do so many of these men who claim to ACTUALLY BE women, a completely new phenomenon never witnessed before in history, albeit cross-dressing for sexual thrills has always existed, want access to women’s spaces and rights? Why? Why now? Why must 95+% of the population go along with it? Why do they never answer any of these questions? Why don’t you?

      Liked by 3 people

    5. You’re assuming the premise and a scientific fundamentalism rejected by Darwin. ‘Perceived knowledge’ is an excellent term here. Ultimately, I’m happy that you have an opinion. I’m not here to change your mind. It’s the climate of horrible transphobia that is being created that is upsetting me. Marion Millar’s woeful comments, her racism … and it’s all being either defended or ignored. Sensible people can draw their own conclusions from this. No one wants is acknowledging this.

      Like

    6. Jeggit: Was Darwin talking about human beings, Jeggit? We know, for instance, that clown fish can change sex for very fundamental species survival reasons. I very much doubt that Darwin had ever seen a human change sex or that it had ever happened in the past or was likely to happen in the future, but I suppose, like anyone, it cannot be ruled out totally. Just because something has never happened, does not mean that it can never happen. The premise, as I said, is based on the knowledge that we have now, itself based on science, and the distinct lack of any scientific discovery to overturn that knowledge. Who knows, the future might show us that sex change in humans is possible, but, laws, etc. cannot or should not be changed to reflect what might happen in some future scenario for which we have no knowledge or no experience.

      I believe that there was a case of several girls on a Caribbean island becoming boys at puberty. It was initially hailed as evidence that humans could change sex until the boys were examined, and a few of the girls as they were changing into boys. It was eventually established that the girls had been boys all along but that their testes and penises had not grown properly before puberty and that they had been deemed to be girls. However, they were, and had always been, boys – of the male sex. I think that there have been a case or two where the opposite occurred, too, but, again, the sex of the individuals is usually established after tests are carried out. In utero problems with fusion of the sex organs, or, alternatively, non fusion, or testes being present inside people who had been deemed to be female, do occur, but they are not indicative of sex change, just of full development not having been achieved.

      That people might genuinely believe themselves to be the opposite sex to that which they actually are is, indeed, worthy of compassion and certainly of counselling and psychological evaluation which might, in the end, lead to hormone treatment and surgery to help that person live his or her life as comfortably as possible. Again, I ask the question: what has that got to do with changing protective laws and opening up all women’s spaces and rights to males who self-ID where long experience of male violence, particularly sexual violence, of male sexual fetish and male sexual paraphilia are very much the most fundamental reasons why female-only spaces and rights are necessary.

      You offer all kinds of caveats that simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and I am happy that you are not trying to change my mind because I am not trying to change yours. Being kind to those who seek to use our female socialization has led us to this impasse. GC feminists have been completely consistent in their call for open debate, only to be silenced by hysterical shrieks of ‘transphobia’.

      Women are notoriously cruel and betraying of other women, but I would put their collaboration with males (who are always the beneficiaries of any female unwariness) on a par with the defeated and colonized nations of all empires. The Romans, for example, were past masters at using defeated and subjugated peoples against another. The British learned the lesson. Men accessing female spaces and rights is just another form of colonization, leaving the wholly unsound and fundamentally dangerous men sexual rights/men’s rights cohort at odds with the UN charter on Human Rights/Women’s Rights and on colonization. In these circumstances, it is totally inappropriate to change laws and introduce new ones until a full and open debate has taken place. Very few members of the wider public have had any say on this at all.

      Liked by 2 people

    7. Jeggit: Are biological sex, fundamental to our species’ survival, and biological essentialism the same thing, though in regard to, on the one hand, gender critical theory and, on the other, gender ideology? It seem to me that they are not. I gave the example of Darwin’s belief that women should not be educated (note, should not could) as one example of how biological sex for women can be skewed to reflect a gender role that men prescribe for women. Keeping women out of the RC priesthood is another. Would the RC Church, do you think, try to keep a trans woman – a natal male with all his bits – out of the priesthood on the same basis?

      Liked by 1 person

    8. I must confess I eventually got lost reading this exchange. However, being a simple person I really content myself with the idea that the sky is blue and water is wet, whatever academic studies, done no doubt by very learned people (in their specific field at least), say. To persuade me that the sky is actually green and water dry would take some serious convincing, whatever the law might or might not say on the matter.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Gender critical does not imply biological essential-ism, which is bad on it’s own. Biology still matters though, medical practice could not function without accurately interpreting the processes of human biology. Which has evolved differently for men and women, resulting in male and female modes of perception, cognition, emotion, and behavior. These can’t be authentically projected into from the opposite biology, and we can’t change our biological sex. So using the law to force society to behave differently, is a step closer to a state of eugenics.

    The Scottish government’s conflation of gender identity with sex, re-positions the legal identity of women to that of a subourdinate sub-set of men (who can now freely enter the legal domain of womanhood), and removes long-standing protections against legal and physical harm women experience as a result of possessing a female biology.

    Scotland can not claim to be a democracy if the GRA amendments proceed as drafted. Then again, who actually believes Scotland is currently a democracy given Brexit?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “… Gender critical does not imply biological essential-ism, which is bad on it’s own… ”

      I agree, Cameron.

      “… The Scottish government’s conflation of gender identity with sex, re-positions the legal identity of women to that of a subourdinate sub-set of men (who can now freely enter the legal domain of womanhood), and removes long-standing protections against legal and physical harm women experience as a result of possessing a female biology… ”

      This didn’t happen overnight, and I think it is worse than women being a subset of men – inferior men, if you like. That has been circulating in society since very early times. What is happening is that women are being eliminated as a sex completely, and gender identity is all that matters. That the law has colluded with this, and even collaborated in it, as has the medical profession and academia should ring a warning knell because it has happened before, and anyone who doesn’t know that, and the consequences, needs to learn.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. The content of the guest post is superb and aids greatly in my very limited understanding of the GRA Act and the pernicious potential/actual effect on all women and their personal spaces. That this should be sponsored and promoted by an SNP Government which allegedly supports women’s rights should be beyond belief. However it is not.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. A standing ovation is in order for your article LorCal. Truly Excellent .
    You paint a terrifying picture in a reasonable and logical manner.
    Difficult to argue with the fact that Scottish Government is dragging us all into the realm of Queen Theory.
    Just one week after the Holyrood Demo for Women Rights, a Glasgow Herald headline trending today is the Scottish Governments plan to limit or ban demonstrations in the environs of Holyrood. Police can arrest those defying that ban.
    Welcome to Sturgeons dictatorship.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. I have read many posts, blogs, threads on this SELF ID nonsense, but this is the best post yet, she has covered every scenario, & what makes it all so wrong is, it is a woman who described herself as a feminist, that is forcing through the changes so that bearded men in frocks can use woman’s toilets, changing rooms, share a ward with very vulnerable woman. Serve their sentence in a woman’s prison even when the charge against them was of a sexual nature, in some cases even Rape..

    We as adult born females must not allow anyone in government to get away with this.. we must take a stand to protect not just ourselves. But our daughters, nieces, granddaughters… We must fight back, and we must defeat this stupidity that the Feminist FM is going to force on us all. SHE in truth needs locked up in a mans prison..

    Thank you LornCal for a great post..And thank you Duncan for reposting it here..
    Kate

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Thank you, all of you who have commented. If this makes people think, that is all it is intended to do. It is not thinking, and not thinking matters through to their logical conclusion, that leads to massive errors of judgement that can destroy societies. The Scottish Government has not thought the GRA Reform through, or, if it has, and it still presses ahead, it will be guilty of a gross lack of duty of care to its female citizens in Scotland, a gross lack of attention to due diligence and a gross lack of duty to the law – not to mention a critical error of judgement on biology and science which it purports to teach our young people in our schools, colleges and universities. Again, this will become a gross neglect of its duty of care to our children, and, when coupled with its refusal to put a halt to children being referred for gender dysphoria, and subsequent treatment, at tender ages, it is compounding its neglect of, and active participation in, what could well become a massive mistake that will back to haunt it, and Scotland.

      A huge thank you to duncanspence for allowing me to post on his blogsite. Very, very grateful.

      Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.