This is nonsense, of course. The vast, vast majority of us males are perfectly happy to abide by the convention (if not the law) that a sign or symbol on the door indicating a 'public bathroom' is for those who are female is not a place they should be entering. A sign is enough to stop us. A sign. No one needs to inspect anyone chromosomes or genitals. We are perfectly happy to obey the sign, knowing that it is there to preserve the safety, dignity and privacy of the women and girls who are free to enter the space.

The real question that needs an answer is why is that sign not sufficient for some males? Why do they believe they can override the clear intention of that sign? What level of arrogance does it take to think that sign doesn't apply to them?

The source is the referral numbers published by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust's Gender Identity Development Service.

Financial year Girls 2009-10* 40 2014-15 399 2015-16 852 2016-17 1,265 2017-18 1,657 2018-19 1,740 2019-20 1,862

He seems wedded to his notion of a 'moral panic' but has not put his finger on what the moral or panic aspects.

Shooting the messenger.

Again sounds like he is dismissing the costs to women and girls.

But what are these barriers?

They mostly can already but I'd be interested to see what currently is preventing them. And granting access to single-sex spaces for females isn't something that should be granted without good reason.

Males play in the team for males and females play in the teams for females. Perfect.

What on earth does than mean? I can respect a person; I don't have to respect their 'gender' and more than I have to respect their religion or star sign.

In the UK at least, there are exemptions against discrimination in sex-affected sports: trans-identifying males do not have the right to compete in them so this is not rolling back rights, never mind other rights.

We already have that. If you want to dismantle the existing categories in the name of 'fairness' then the burden is on him to say why he thinks males competing against females in all sports is desirable. But if he conceded that there are some sports that should be segregated by sex for performance and fairness reasons then he's lost the whole argument. With the possible exception of darts.

That is merely convenient and I suspect he has some realisation that he cannot win that argument so is attempting to park it.

No, there isn't. There really isn't. The overwhelming evidence is against him and this - at least - is somewhere where he must see he is wrong when presented with that evidence. But to even put that forward as if there really is a debate shows his ideological bias.

No need to use a derogatory term.

In the UK, it's about legal recognition, not societal recognition. But there is never any cogent reasons why the State should ever get involved in how people 'identify'.

Trans people can already "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security."

What they seek is State validation for their feelings.

Clearly incorrect. A moment's search will find many trans activists who want to take over womanhood and drive out women, with violence if necessary.

But the framing again is telling: he wants it to be about the poor downtrodden trans people who are the most marginalised, etc...yet wield enormous power in many corridors.

By looking at the risk to women and girls from males. That has to be the starting point. I can't see why the precautionary principle should not be invoked here: if you want to claim that some males (the ones who want to be treated as if they were female) are no threat to females (not that it's just about feeling or being threatened), then the burden is on the advocates of allowing males into female spaces to show that the risk is - at best - minimal. It is usually accepted that some women are a threat to other women (even if the vast majority of those who are a threat are male), then it has to be accepted that at least some of those males who want to be treated as if they were female are also a threat. The only rebuttal of that is to posit that all men who want to be treated as if they were female are a lower risk to women than even women are. I can't see how anyone could be so credulous.

I can't say I've heard that but even if there was some hyperbole, it could be the result of the fears of women and girls being dismissed out of hand - by men like him.

Seriously? He expect this false equivalence to hold as a serious argument?

There seems to be not even a jot of acknowledgement that there is a threat to women and girls. I see he's about to dismiss them as ungrounded but I assume he is framing this as the (perceived, but in his eyes, non-existent) direct threat to women and girls from trans-identifying males when it is the usual misunderstanding that it is the threat from males that is the persistent and never-ending threat to women and girls.

That is, at best, a sexist and female-blind analysis.

I think this seeks to diminish fundamental differences between the two sexes so that they can be more easily dismissed.

...for those that have one...

Yes, but what this omits is that these societal expectations are almost always demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes - and one sex is far more adversely affected than the other.

Is there some other sense? Or is this framing an attempt to to get societal pressures out the way so it can later be shifted to what the individual feels?

Wrong-headed framing. It's a battle for the rights of women and girls.

Fundamental misunderstanding of what a sex is. Getting this wrong can only mean any framing of the sex-gender issues can't be properly grounded.

This is an extraordinary line to take: "because we don't normally see human ova in our daily lives, the definition of female as being related to an individual whose body is structured to produce large gametes must not be the right definition." Seriously?

Try applying that same line of 'reasoning' to the definition of a man being an adult human male.

This completely misses the fact that in terms of unlawful discrimination and provisions for single-sex spaces and services, the Equality Act 2010 defines sex as a protected characteristic and a person who has this particular protected characteristic is "a reference to a man or to a woman" and defines “woman” as a female of any age and a “man” as a male of any age.

The argument presented here is irrelevant.

This is incorrect. There are different ages for different purposes and varies by countries in the UK. For example, in England and Wales, those 16 to 18 can marry, but only with parental consent. In Scotland, parental consent is not required for this age group.

This is really a very poor description of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Act.

This gives those who meet the criterion in the Act for the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' addition rights that others do not have.

This fails to mention that some discrimination is lawful under the Act, such as that provided by the single-sex exemption.

Why is the protected characteristic of sex not listed? Is this omission incompetence or deliberate?

The protected characteristic is 'religion or belief', not 'faith'.

Female and male are the names of the two sexes, not 'gender identities'.

Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes,

What on earth is this trying to say?

Why bring this up? The question made no mention of 'gender reassignment'.

This is wrong. An individual doesn't use any pronouns to describe themselves: pronouns are what others use to refer to a third party, usually when they are not present. An individual may prefer, ask or demand others to use specific words to use when referring to them, but no one has any power to compel anyone - nor should they.

This is incorrect. The Gender Recognition Act gives a number of exceptions to the holder of a Gender Recognition Certificate being considered as of the 'acquired gender' as specified on her/his Gender Recognition Certificate.

The Equality Act 2010 provides additional exemptions, eg the right to single-sex services.

This presumes a definition of 'transgender', which is a term that is not used or even defined in the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

It would be more accurate to say that the GRA provides a way for anyone who fulfils the criteria in the GRA to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Since virtually all CAM practitioners have no medical qualifications, all conditions must be outside their area of expertise.

Would it not be more appropriate to take scientific or medical advice rather than legal?

A body recognised by whom? The only officially recognised CAM practitioners are those registered under the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Osteopaths Act 1993.

This demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking abilities and an inability to listen to what skeptics actually say. Many homeopathic products do contain little or no actual ingredients other than sugar or water, but some do. But one of the main objections to homeopathy is in the belief that it is somehow a 'system of medicine'. Such bizarre beliefs are not founded on any good evidence and any perpetuation of this leads some to eschewing conventional medicines for what might be serious but treatable medical conditions. See http://discoverhomeopathy.co.uk/victims-2/

The (further) decline of homeopathy on the NHS

This is only asserted by those who fail to understand the hierarchy of evidence.

This is wrong. It assumes that homeopathy is an effective treatment when the best evidence (eg the Australian NHMRC homeopathy report) shows that homeopathy has no specific effects over placebo. The comparison with conventional medicine is therefore a false equivalence.

Homeopathy isn't a 'mode of treatment' unless and until good quality evidence is presented that shows homeopathy has specific effects over placebo.

The Australian NHMRC report into homeopathy was the latest review of the best evidence and it concluded:

Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.

This is technically incorrect. The Good Thinking Society challenged the decision Liverpool CCG made to award a contract to a homeopath.