I don't want to be labeled

[RichardA]

Hi been away for a long time - sorry, but I'm still dressing the way I like.
This new trans law how will it affect us ?
I don't want to be labeled as something "odd" I'm a man and proud of it
I have a beard, I wear a skirt so does that still make me "a man in a skirt" ?
Or am I a freak show for media the laugh at me ?

[Jim]

What's UK's new trans law?

[DrFishnets]

I have the same worry as you do. Like yourself, I am just a heterosexual man who likes wearing skirts but I also likes wearing dresses and tights. I do because I find it comfortable and I prefer the style and look of women’s clothing over men’s.
I fully agree with the supreme courts decision. However, because of that I fear that people will now think any guy wearing a skirt is a trans woman and have hostility towards us even though we are not trans - we are just normal guys wearing skirts and we do not want to invade women’s privacy and we respect women.

[RichardA]

What's UK's new trans law?

Last week, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex under equalities law, meaning, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.

[Midas]

It’s not a new law. It is binding judicial interpretation of an existing law. It’s also simple common sense that should never have needed to have a judge anywhere near it.

[moonshadow]

I'm not sure I understand the concern here.

It seems to me that the U.K. just nullified being transgender for all intents and purposes.

As you stated, you are not transgender anyway, I don't see how it will effect you at all.

Okay.... so there is this apparent worldwide backlash against being trans..but we're not trans...

Why does it matter to this group?

[crfriend]

Last week, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex under equalities law, meaning, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.

Well, folks will classify, judge, and label you the way that the see fit, and there's precious little we can do about it. The only problem is that we get misjudged by some misfit with a chip on his shoulder, and then it could get nasty -- especially in lesser-developed countries.

Since we're not trying to be accepted as women and we're not trying to deceive, though, technically we should not run foul of the law.

[Barleymower]

I'm not sure I understand the concern here.

It seems to me that the U.K. just nullified being transgender for all intents and purposes.

As you stated, you are not transgender anyway, I don't see how it will effect you at all.

Okay.... so there is this apparent worldwide backlash against being trans..but we're not trans...

Why does it matter to this group?

Taylor and Francis are respected academic publishers here in the UK. They produced this article which explains TERF ideology. The term TERF has however been replaced by Gender Critical Feminists due to the negative connotations.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 569#d1e190

There is a backlash against Trans community. We are not Trans therefore not affected? Maybe a victory for common sense, maybe the thin end of the wedge when parts of society are excluded.

[Mouse]

The ruling makes no difference to me as a man who wears skirts all the time.

My friends, who are trans, have the problem of which bathroom to use, and where to change.

The Supreme Court just pointed out to Parliament, the simple fact that they had created laws which did not link together in a logical manner. They did not change the Law, just clarify what an Equality Law in 2010 meant by the term "Woman".

The full text is here https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_20 ... c48cee.pdf
The Press Summary is here https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_20 ... 145662.pdf

[moonshadow]

The term TERF has however been replaced by Gender Critical Feminists due to the negative connotations.

Heh... mmkay.

[Barleymower]

The review of the law in the High Court was brought about by the Gender Critical lobby. The aims of the gender critical lobby were published byTaylor and Francis who one the worlds leading academic publishers. T&F are not some ramdon "fake news' outlet.
Here is a summary then of the gender critical lobby view:

There are only two genders: Arguments centred on biology dictating a binary system and the belief that no child is born in the wrong body.

Trans women are not legitimate women: Profiles argued that trans women are men invading women’s spaces, citing examples like prisons (for lenient punishments), toilets (sexual harassment) and sports (for competitive advantage).

Trans men are confused and influenced women: The belief that ‘gender ideology’ persuades confused women to become men, with patriarchy as a main argument.

Hormone replacement therapy is dangerous: Opposition to hormone administration to children and adults, citing unverified studies and purported side effects.

Minors are forced/persuaded to undergo surgery: Allegations of drugs prescribed to children without proper consideration, involving parental coercion and discussions of mutilation and castration.

Drag queens are actually paedophiles: Accusations that drag queens, conflated with trans people, are paedophiles and should not interact with children.

Trans activism is misogynistic: Belief that the ideology is misogynistic and sexist, citing intrusion into women’s spaces and societal indoctrination.

Transgender (always) involves pornography: Allegations of paedophilia and the belief that transgender identification is a fetish involving pornography.

Women are threatened in their existence: Fear that trans rights efforts undermine traditional gender-based rights and protections for women.

If you think that is not an MIS problem and has nothing to do with us then you might be wrong.

[moonshadow]

If you think that is not an MIS problem and has nothing to do with us then you might be wrong.

There might be, that is until his (the MIS) accuser is confronted by the actual fact of the matter...

That being a man wearing a skirt, openly identifying as such, is nothing more and nothing less... just a man in a skirt.

There is no ideology, no political element, no religious element, no identity, no barging in on women's spaces, sports, etc, just a man and his skirt.

As for the transgender people, they are not part of my orbit, and I am not part of theirs. I wish them no ill, and wish them well. I've wasted too much time debating the trans issue over the years, an issue that is really none of my business. Frankly, I've reached a point where I really don't give a damn about labels or people who insist on using them.

As for pedophilia, that's just a red herring. A pedophile is an adult (MALE OR FEMALE) who is sexually attracted to children. What that adult happens to be wearing has nothing to do with it.

[Dust]

Look, I see the primary notion that biological reality is a thing and that is what should matter, as actually supporting the notion than men in skirts are just men in skirts, and that that should be fine. If people stopped and used the brains they were given, that is.

In practice if someone views a guy out in a skirt as an ugly transgender person, a failed drag queen, or whatever, then it could cause problems. Also, there are people out there who don't think, and have never been exposed to the concept of a guy in a skirt (or even a kilt) so in that sense we could get caught up in a backlash.

The more towards the stereotypically feminine you dress, the more likely you are to get caught in the backlash. Those of us in kilts or plain skirts, who grow beards, etc. will likely be left alone most of the time. Those who wear pretty pink, frills, high heels, etc. are more likely to experience problems with the general public. But this has always been the case, and I do not expect there will be much of a change for us based on any one ruling or law.

Polls likewise, are averages, and don't represent individuals you encounter. Maybe they will help you know what to expect slightly more or less of, but I wouldn't count on it. You can lie with graphs and statistics, and polls are no exception. How the question is asked, where the sample is taken, and so on, can give the pollster the result they want, and most are biased. People's attitudes don't tend to change very fast.

The trans lobby pushed hard for some pretty radical ideas to go into the force of law, before attitudes had changed and details were worked out. Now they are getting pushback. No one figured out how long someone needed to be on hormones to eliminate the biological sports advantage men have over women. We didn't really, fully work though questions of privacy in places like locker rooms, as a society. A few people did abuse the new rules. And it all happened very fast, and very publicly.

Now what? We take a step back on these ideas. I know we have a few folks on here who are more likely to be affected by this, and I feel for you guys. But if you were using the male facilities, and didn't go changing any legal documents, you should be fine, or at least as good as you were a year ago, in most cases. If you do use the women's facilities, I would recommend you stop. If you changed documents, that might be a headache for things like air and international travel, but day to day, I doubt you will notice anything.

Everyone else, keep skirting, as men, and as men, hold your head high, and most of all, don't panic.

[howardfh]

Last night I went - as a transvestite - round Manchester's pubs. The evening was absolutely no different than usual - first bar used the accessible toilet with my radar key; second bar "The Temple" if you know it, two unisex cubicles, third bar was in the "Gay Village" where toilets are totally unisex, and the fourth had one unisex toilet.

If all these places have unisex facilities and have plenty of customers, why should anyone want anything different?