It's been a shame to see this paper go down the toilet during the last decade

No disrespect to you but people on Reddit echo chambers don't typically really want to hear differing opinions and they certainly don't want to read lengthy posts with those opinions.

But I've finished the crossword and there's still 30 minutes of my commute left so here's my take on the issue:

The comment in question begins by quoting large chunks of the guardian article. It then begins substantively with:

Imagine an article that said "Gay men fly in the face of biological sexuality, heterosexual relationships are the biologically normal relationships and homosexuals are fighting against biology". I think you'd find it quite easy to see why that is homophobic, no?

Now. None of the quotes attributed use this phrase or anything close to it. The inference is that the speech marked quote resembles something in the guardian article, such that the hypothetical example given highlights and exposes something horrible in the article.

At NO POINT in the attributed quotes does it

  1. Use the phrase fly in the face
  2. State that being gay flies in the face of 'biological sexuality'
  3. Says that being trans flies in the face of biological sexuality or biology
  4. Says that heterosexual relationships are biologically normal
  5. Says that trans people are not biologically normal
  6. Says that trans people are fighting biology

What the attributed quotes DO SAY is:

  1. Many gender-critical feminists believe Stonewall poses a risk to women.

  2. Gender-critical feminists believe that in a patriarchal society (anyone going to argue that's not what we live in?) women's bodies in terms of sex and having babies play a large role in their oppression (anyone going to argue with this? Women in the developing world are often reduced to sex/baby machines and beasts of burden. In many places women do not even have control over their reproductive organs. In the UK we still live in a society dominated by men)

  3. Gender identity can't therefore wholly replace sex as a protected characteristic in equalities law (because much of the inequality stems from issues arising from the reproductive process and sex process)

  4. Therefore women have the right to organise on the basis of their sex and to access single-sex spaces.

  5. Stonewall campaigns to abolish legal provisions for single-sex spaces, so that males who identify as women have the same rights to access them as those born female.(just stating a fact)

  6. Partial/incomplete quote about the idea of disagreement on what it means to be a woman

7.Gender-critical feminists regard the reduction of womanhood to gender expression as reinforcing regressive gender norms (is this controversial?)

The comment continues

If it said that "biological sexual attraction is more than just a feeling, it's programmed in by nature" and by implication called homosexuality unnatural then I think you'd understand how that is homophobic.

It doesn't say any of that. And the analogy is a false one anyway. Noone could seriously suggest sexuality was programmed. But typically biology dictates certain realities as to sex pertaining to genitalia, reproductive systems, genetics, hormones etc. There are some people who are "born in the wrong body" I assume is an acceptable way of putting it(?). If there were not certain biological realities or programming then noone would get reassignment surgery or transition. If trans people (and many do) choose to have invasive surgery to alter their bodies then they accept that their biology is not correct for who they are. So why are people getting outraged when the article references the fact that trans people do not share the same body features as cis people?

The comment continues

What about if it said "Lesbians should be barred from women's spaces like refuges because they pose a threat to normal women and sex and reproduction play a significant role in the oppression of women." You'd be able to see the issue there right?

Again. A false analogy. The article isn't that anyway. The issue pertains to biological realities. A lesbian (assuming they are, for this example, a cis woman lesbian) will share the same sex characteristics as the other women. A pre-surgery/treatment trans woman will possess male genitalia together with the associated musculature, strength, power, testosterone that women do not typically possess. Men are almost universally considerably more powerful and capable of much more aggression and violence. If you can't see this then you're lying to yourself. A trans women therefore may present hypothetically a considerable physical danger to cis women. That's just a fact.

The comment continues

This "gender critical" horseshit not only flies in the face of the consensus within the expert medical and scientific communities, it is promoting repressive views of a group that often need protection. It is a bigoted ideology that misrepresents in order to attack the rights of a specific group under the guise of feminism.

No evidence has been presented of which aspects of the "horseshit" is wrong or what aspects of medical/scientific consensus prove said "horseshit wrong".

It's not promoting repressive views. It's pointing out a potential, and in some cases, realised issue.

The rest of the comment continues.

It is based upon an incorrect understanding of both sex and gender that promotes a world view that seeks to deny trans-people the necessary treatments and protections to be who they are.

Don't think it's denying any treatments at all. Nothing in the article about that.

Don't think it's denying protections either. No evidence of that. It's trying to stand up for a group of people. It does so in a reasonable way. Unlike the average poster on here who seems utterly disinterested, to the point of contempt, in the safety of cis-women.

It goes on

For example, conflating "biological sex" with "chromosomal sex", which is not the same thing at all, and ignoring the evidence that actually biological sex is not a rigid binary in the first place.

All very interesting. But whilst all of this may be true, and whilst biological sex may be a spectrum albeit ultimately displayed in a very small number of cases, the issue being raised here is trans women who are at the male end of the spectrum with male characteristics.

And on

Trans individuals are aware that they aren't cis. That doesn't invalidate their gender and it also doesn't mean their sex is determined solely by chromosomes.

Don't think it's saying that. It's not denying anyone's gender. It's just pointing out issues stated above.

/r/LabourUK Thread Parent Link -