You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think the people who compare it with identifying as a unicorn – let’s call them unicorners – are like many slightly neurodivergent people in that they are attempting to over-rationalise the issue. Logically, sure, you could compare the two ideas, but this isn’t a situation where logic applies.
Maybe some - and if that is the case I wholeheartedly apologise to them.
But some - and I can very quickly identify someone in my immediate circle - are not neurodivergent, they're just argumentative, bigoted people.
In some ways I'd have more 'respect' (not exactly the right words, but YKWIM) if they just came out and said they hate blacks, or TG, or whatever. Instead of mealy mouthed shit like 'all lives matter' and 'I identify as a unicorn' and then denying they mean anything bad by it., and i should stop being so touchy.
If someone says to me they have changed sex I’m going to say you haven’t.
Why? Why do you have to say anything? Why can’t you just let it go?
It's because poah's a**ehole was misassigned as a face at birth and now he can't stop talking out of it
But some – and I can very quickly identify someone in my immediate circle – are not neurodivergent, they’re just argumentative, bigoted people.
Ya, Pies Morgan tries this "but why can't I identify as an attack helicopter then" crap and it's certainly not neurodivergence
I have been avoiding this thread because this topic usually gets very bad tempered and polarised
I have some real doubts about the whole trans issues from the abhorrent behaviour of some trans activists to the safe spaces issue
However out of basic respect for what are obviously very troubled people I would never "deadname" anyone and try to treat every individual with respect. Its a basic part of being a decent human being. What difference does it make to me to show that basic level of respect? None at all
I have had an argument many times in the past with someone who claims that allowing trans women to be called ‘women’ erodes women’s rights, but I’m not really sure how that’s possible and he’s not able to explain it to me convincingly.
It's the same argument used against gay marriage, and equally spurious. I swear, some people seem to think it's going to be made mandatory.
Ya, Pies Morgan tries this “but why can’t I identify as an attack helicopter then” crap and it’s certainly not neurodivergence
No, there's a far more appropriate word to describe Piers Morgan.
It’s the same argument used against gay marriage, and equally spurious. I swear, some people seem to think it’s going to be made mandatory.
Its not the same arguement
Its not spurious ( the apprehension is real even if you don't accept the actuality is) and thats a classic example of polarising the argument
You need to keep people onside and not to make it so "them and us"
I have some real doubts about the whole trans issues from the abhorrent behaviour of some trans activists to the safe spaces issue
What do you mean by the 'WHOLE' trans issue? I think / hope that is just bad phrasing but as written that sounds like all of it? I understand completely some aspects are unsupportable (as you say, the behaviour of SOME pro-trans campaigners is abhorrent) but to say you have doubts about all of it, I'm struggling to understand that from you.
I'm a fervent supporter of trans issues, at the same time I can understand some of the concerns around eg safe spaces. It's doesn't have to be all or nothing; I wouldn't expect people to accept all of it, there are always extremists.
However out of basic respect for what are obviously very troubled people I would never “deadname” anyone and try to treat every individual with respect. Its a basic part of being a decent human being. What difference does it make to me to show that basic level of respect? None at all
So much this.
Christ, there's some sort of black hole equivalent for empathy in some posters on here
They really ought to consider ****ing right off
Its not the same arguement
Its not spurious ( the apprehension is real even if you don’t accept the actuality is) and thats a classic example of polarising the argument
Sure it is. It's a fear of people who are a bit different.
The **** is "apprehension"? White folk were apprehensive of black folk. Straight folk were apprehensive of gay folk. Parents were apprehensive of vaccines. It's all born from ignorance.
You're talking about actual human beings here. People need to adult the hell up and deal with their apprehensions.
You need to keep people onside and not to make it so “them and us”
I think you'll find that it's not this side of the discussion doing the Othering. You'll always get a few with chips on their shoulder of course, I said this earlier, but mostly people just want to be recognised and accepted.
I think / hope that is just bad phrasing but as written that sounds like all of it?
this. It is bad phrasing. You did get my gist - its around the behaviour of some of the activists and the conflict of rights around safe spaces etc not of the right of people to transition if they want so long as they are making a free informed choice.
Following long in depth conversations with folk who have transitioned where I tried to gain understanding I accept I do not know enough to understand and probably will never understand. Same as I cannot understand how anyone can believe in a god. Its beyond my ken. I accept what they say but I cannot understand it
But that does not stop me from accepting people as who they are and behaving in a decent way to them. Always. Its a basic cornerstone of human decency.
Sure it is. It’s a fear of people who are a bit different.
NO it is not. You really need to understand that. Thats a really nasty statement. Thats a classic othering and deliberate polarising of debate.
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
The women I have spoken to about this have been fighting for equal rights since before you were born. to dismiss concerns as fear and bigotry is a nasty slur. to equate it with racism and homophobia is a vile slur
This is why I will keep out of this debate in general. Express any doubts about any aspect and you get shouted down and called a bigot.
Once again I am sorry I entered this . To be called a bigot is highly offensive
Thanks TJ, was important for me to clarify that and hope you didn't take it as an attack. i didn't want to misinterpret and draw a wrong conclusion, or want others to do the same.
Like you say, there are aspects that despite being very close to, I don't understand - doesn't mean I don't accept them. I don't understand quantum physics, or how radios work either....
No worries theotherjonv. I have no issue with asking for clarification
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
Of course it's fear. What else can their concerns be otherwise? A better question might be, is that fear justified?
You can't throw [group 1] under the bus just because [group 2] doesn't like them, or are scared of them. There are plenty of fights to be had.
I don't "dare" tell women anything, I wouldn't be so presumptuous to tell anyone how they should feel. I am absolutely on their side. But I will call out injustice and irrationality whether it comes from a woman, a man or a potato plant.
to equate it with racism and homophobia is a vile slur
"it" being transphobia?
Equating transphobia with homophobia is a vile slur?
Are you sure about that?
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
And how dare you disregard the views of my third wave feminist friends and try to claim the entirety of feminism for your second wave feminism friends.
How dare you try to say my friends don't have to fight for their rights as women all the time because your friends did all the hard work in the 70s and 80s.
Second wave feminism made some great strides for women's rights but let's not pretend it was a truly inclusive movement. It excluded minority women, it excluded poor women, and, of course, it excluded trans-women.
If you grew up in that era, as I imagine you and your friends did, then you are going to have been heavily influenced by it and, particularly in the UK, there's a good chance you subscribe to the biological sex-based absolutism of that movement.
If I were you, I would try and get out of the echo chamber and talk to some younger feminists. Try telling them they don't care about women's rights and the reason is because your friends have already done all the hard work for them.
"It" being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
I tell you 3 times its nothing to do with fear of the people involved. therefore it is not transphobia. Its a vile slander to claim it is and so to dismiss then as bigots
What you and Bruce are doing is polarising debate, alienating potential allies
Neither of you know what is in these peoples heads and what yo are doing is mansplaining to them telling them what they are thinking and you are wrong.
Very nice,. shut down debate, dismiss any concerns as bigotry.
How arrogant
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
I did non of those things you accuse me of Bruce
You absolutely have on other threads.
You once said something along the lines of, 'Perhaps young people don't care as much about these issues because they didn't have to fight for them the way my friends did.'
It's echoed by this above:
The women I have spoken to about this have been fighting for equal rights since before you were born.
It's the implication that only your friends views are valid. Your friends' views should be listened to but so should my friends' views. Stop disregarding them.
Amongst my friends' concerns are that if you start policing single sex spaces then who does the policing? This is not a 'hypothetical', this is actually happening. Women who don't meet an arbitrary standard of femininity can find themselves harassed, often by men who are 'protecting' women's spaces.
Your friends have concerns and fears that are not based in reality. My friends have concerns and fears that are actually being played out every day.
Whose fears do you think I'm going to take more seriously?
Your friends’ views should be listened to but so should my friends’ views. Stop disregarding them.
How about listening then instead of just simply shouting "transphobe" Bigot"
As you even indicate that was no definitive statement I made. It was a question I posed looking for answers. I wondered if that was the case
How you can claim you know what goes on in others heads is beyond me
Stop disregarding them.
I am not, I never have done. the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
How about listening then instead of just simply shouting “transphobe” Bigot”
Fine, I'm listening. Tell me what your friends are worried about.
The question is, does listening mean I'm not allowed to respond? Because that is what you're saying we should do. Listen to your friends but for the love of god don't question what they are saying.
I've told you exactly what my friends are worried about and can provide plenty of examples of this happening.
And, by the way, I haven't called anyone a transphobe or a bigot, yet.
How you can claim you know what goes on in others heads is beyond me
I'm not. I'm responding to what your friends have said with what my friends have said. No mind reading necessary.
I am not, I never have done. the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
Well, no. The opinions of some second wave feminists and people whose views were formed during the 70s and 80s are in conflict with the opinions of some third wave feminists and people whose views were formed in the 90s and 00s.
The conflict is entirely manufactured and you are falling for it.
The Witch Trials of TJ Rowling....
Good luck arguing for actual women's rights against this insane screeching, there can be no disagreement, only hate and bigotry.
Good luck arguing for actual women’s rights against this insane screeching, there can be no disagreement, only hate and bigotry.
I love the fact that you can't make a coherent point, so you fall back on vague statements that fall down in the face of a moment's scrutiny.
But hey, keep shouting the slogans. It's a strategy that seems to be working.
**** it, this thread is not going to be good for my mental health so I'm going to step out.
One thing I will say is I think these threads are a lot better than they used to be. I'm often about to make a point but find other people have already made it. People who are making genuinely bigoted statements are being called out and less than fully formed opinions are being questioned.
Honestly, I think it's a big improvement on what these threads were just a few years ago and I think a large part of that is down to people like @boriselbrus and @theotherjonv sharing their experiences which can't have been easy. You have my total respect. Don't let the (remaining) bastards get you down!
actual women’s rights
Can you clarify what you mean because I can interpret that two ways depending where the emphasis of actual is?
Are the rights actual, or are you saying that only 'actual women' have these rights. Which then brings an inference.
As with TJ's point last night, I'm sensitive to the nuances because sometimes this lack of clarity isn't actually there - it's a deliberate but ambiguous choice of words and before forming an opinion I want to give benefit of the doubt.
“It” being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
This is of course a valid point. I looked into this a bit and I found a report from Stonewall where they asked people who run women's shelters what they do about trans women. Mostly they were admitted and mostly accepted by the CIS women who were using the facility. Obviously this isn't conclusive and the report is open to bias, but it's there for discussion.
As for single sex services - how should we allocate those? Why are they needed? What harm comes from admitting a trans woman? What happens when trans women need these services? Is allocating services according to one's birth sex a flawed model?
These are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones. They need to be discussed and answered IMO.
TJ, I do empathise with your concerns here. It appears the choices are either to ignore the concerns of trans people, or ignore the concerns of the many women who feel this is threatening them. And like you, while I've been in support of the former I haven't wanted to disregard the latter. As a cis man, I will never fully understand either side as I'll never experience either's struggles. So I don't want to end up mansplaining to a load of (cis)women why their concerns are invalid.
What I've concluded for now though, is that a lot of those arguing trans rights threaten womens rights are either reactionary or, worse, arguing in bad faith. I have to make some effort to detangle this.
The prison debate is a good example to think through. So some women fear that if the process of gender reassignment and subsequent relocation to women's prison facilities was made too easy, women could be put in danger. OK, so to my mind, it's reasonable to be concerned that creating a system that male sexual preditors could exploit may put women in danger. But that's not really a concern about trans people, it's a concern about male sex offenders. The issue is when people instead think 'no, we can't have trans women in women's prisons because trans women themselves are inherently dangerous and preditory'. That's transphobia.
A more clearcut example: The Dail Mail recently published a whole article about a young women's oh-so-terrifying bathroom experience with a trans women, that seems to have been based on a lie. They are just stirring up hate as they always do.
I think we have to be careful to filter out the genuine concerns of women from this transphobia.
You will have almost certainly shared a bathroom with trans people already.
It's also worth noting, as Contrapoints has discussed, that arguments about trans rights are dominated by the rights of trans women. For example, I've not heard any men complaining about trans men having access to men's bathrooms (indeed trans men are almost certainy in more danger from cis men than the other way around).
As I write this I realise there's probably a deep irony here. I suspect a trans man with a vagina, who presented as a man, would likely experience a lot of hassle using womens' bathrooms, by the same kind of women who don't want trans women in their bathrooms
Anyway, the point is, most transphobia seems to hinge on the idea that men's inherently higher propensity towards sexual and other physical violence becomes embodied in trans women.
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
But you did join the debate. And I think your comments did come across as a little bit “I’ve nothing against trans people but…”.
Yes and I am sorry I did so as once again Bruce and Cougar shout down any concerns about any aspects where conflicting rights come into conflict as bigotry and transphobia.
Bruce - you have called me and my friends transphobes thus bigots on numerous occasions
Thanks for once again insinuating I am a bigot poly. Nice
Cougar
direct quote from you
Of course it’s fear. What else can their concerns be otherwise?
so this statement from you is false
I don’t “dare” tell women anything, I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to tell anyone how they should feel.
You are telling them their concerns are based on fear of trans people when it is not.
Yes Poly - and the but is that many of my friends have concerns that I relayed in the spirit of open discussion. the result is I get shouted down as a bigot and all my friends are bigots. the fact that two of these friends have close trans relatives they are supporting with love and care means nothing.
No nuance allowed, no doubts allowed, no debate allowed. any doubts you are a bigot. Relaying my friends concerns makes me a bigot.
Its not helpful at all. Its not conducive to any debate
I have cougar telling me what my friends motivations are ie fear of trans people when its not. How dare you tell me what my friends motivations are, get it so wrong and then double down on it
right. last post on it.
And please stop calling anyone with any doubts a transphobe. Its highly offensive
“It” being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
I already answered this. It's natural to be concerned, of course. How to you propose we ally those concerns?
I tell you 3 times its nothing to do with fear of the people involved. therefore it is not transphobia.
What is it to do with, then?
Its a vile slander to claim it is and so to dismiss then as bigots
How about "ignorant"? All these friends you're white knighting for, have any of them ever knowingly met someone trans?
What you and Bruce are doing is polarising debate, alienating potential allies
Neither of you know what is in these peoples heads and what yo are doing is mansplaining to them telling them what they are thinking and you are wrong.
It's exactly what you're doing.
All we have to go on regarding your friends is what you tell us. So far you've done a good deal of ranting but not much actual explaining.
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
For someone who won't join the debate you're doing an awful lot of typing.
the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
I do. It's quite easy really. Stop othering and start being nice to people.
Yes and I am sorry I did so as once again Bruce and Cougar shout down any concerns about any aspects where conflicting rights come into conflict as bigotry and transphobia.
I'm not shouting anything down, I'm disagreeing with you. Sorry about that.
You are telling them their concerns are based on fear of trans people when it is not.
What is it then?
You do realise, don't you, that this reads an awful lot like "I'm not racist, I just don't want darkies living next door to me"? And sure, maybe that's a misinterpretation on our part. But that being the case, if you want to address it then you're going to have to explain yourself better beyond some handwave about ephemeral "concerns" backed up with vitriol when called out on it.
And please stop calling anyone with any doubts a transphobe. Its highly offensive
I'm not calling anyone with "doubts" a transphobe. "Doubts" are not the issue here, that's not transphobia, it's basic ignorance (in the literal rather than pejorative sense). Continuing to hold the same distasteful views after being presented with new information is when it becomes bigotry.
Here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your friends who by your own admission we can't possibly know what they think, and give us your thoughts?
Interesting piece in the Grauniad today. Here's a snippet:
She’d found out a few years earlier, aged 21, when she went to the doctor after waiting years to get her period. She expected to be told to put on weight. Instead, Khumalo discovered she had the genetic condition androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS): her body has XY chromosomes but is unable to respond to male sex hormones, so her genitals developed as female. In a 2016 blogpost after Miss South Africa, she spelt out what the condition is: “[It] resulted in me being physically female, but genetically male. I’ll spare you the long biology and genetics lecture.”
Not quite sure how this fits with Poah's 'science'. I'm obviously aware that this is a rare case, but it certainly proves that a rigid interpretation based on chromosomes is unwise.
It appears the choices are either to ignore the concerns of trans people, or ignore the concerns of the many women who feel this is threatening them.
There is a third route, and it's where TJ's stance collapses. What do you do with a child who's frightened of monsters in the wardrobe? Do you invest in barricades and nail the door shut, or do you hold their hand and explore the wardrobe together to see if there are in fact any monsters in there?
The solution to allaying concerns is reassurance, not pandering.
As I write this I realise there’s probably a deep irony here. I suspect a trans man with a vagina, who presented as a man, would likely experience a lot of hassle using womens’ bathrooms, by the same kind of women who don’t want trans women in their bathrooms
Yep. I've said this on previous threads. Trans people still need to use the toilet. So the women's loos either get trans men or trans women, which would we prefer? If trans women aren't really women then trans men aren't really men so presumably everyone squawking about toilets will be quite happy with a fully-transitioned man in there. Maybe we could get some urinals installed for them.
These are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones. They need to be discussed and answered IMO.
Possibly. Do they need to be discussed and answered by men? Or can men (including me) just butt out and leave it to cis and trans women to determine?
I cannot tell whether my question/position is driven by a desire to STFU and stop shoving my GDMF male oar into everything (good) or is a cop-out because I can't be bothered wrestling with this shit (probably bad).
Are there many women who feel threatened or is it a vocal minority? And how does it compare to numbers of trans women who feel threatened? Who is most at risk?
@stevenmenmuir it feels like a reasonable amount of women already (see the protests in Scotland recently)
But as the Tories are, through desparation, likely to try to win the next election on the culture wars, we can expect this to rise as the Dail Mail etc. stir up the fear
But weren't the protests in Scotland led by the Scottish Family Party an organisation led and formed by Richard Lucas formerly of UKIP? The protests last week were fronted by Calvin Robinson and Laurence Fox, the less said about them the better. They looked to me to be very small but loud protests.
Where to start with this? I think both sides of this absurd arguing and mud-slinging need to remember that other people can have opinions and experiences and that they can be as nuanced and non-binary as the subject at the core of the arguments. This really is peak STW.
@stevenmenmuir sounds like you know more than me about these things. My previous comment was very crude -- I just watched a youtube video of someone interviewing people at the Scottish protest and it looked reasonably large
as johndoh said - this is not a single issue / yes-no situation, it's far more nuanced. It's like one of those infernal management spider map diagrams, and even on each axis of the web they aren't single yes-no choices, they are 1-10 scores on how strongly you agree or disagree. In many cases even as Dad to a TG son, I have 'conflicting' views.
eg: Do I think toilets should be open to TG in general - yes, I'm towards that so they can identify and live in the gender they have chosen.
Do i think that refuges for abused or trafficked women should be open to all? I lean towards nofor that, I don't think you can escape the need that these very vulnerable people have needs that potentially usurp more 'day to day' equality. If there's a case where TG women are also abused / trafficked maybe that would need re-examination, IDK. But I hope by saying I lean towards protected spaces in these instances, I don't now get labelled transphobic?
Some people are firmly against everything on this map, and their reasons may be fear, religion, bigotry, ignorance, who knows.
Where I see bigotry i will call it out (and as per other posts, if you align with clearly transphobic actors and don't challenge that, you're going to get lumped in by association I'm afraid).
Where I'm not sure I'll try to clarify - and there have been a couple of posts on here that have failed the sniff test for me, for example, others that have passed.
If it's ignorance, I'll try to discuss and hopefully enlighten, despite neither being TG or a woman myself, the two groups that seem to have most at stake here. I hope that's not mansplaining.
If it's fear, I try to soothe - the vast vast majority of TG folk are not embarking on this for a glimpse of boob in the changing rooms, it's a terrifying distressing journey and there are far easier ways to see other people's privates if you want to.
If it's confusion - come join the club. I knew being a parent would be challenging, this wasn't anywhere near the top of the list of 'things I might need to deal with' when they handed me a grey screaming mass and said congratulations, it's a girl. It's OK to say you don't know.
But please let's all be a bit nicer to each other while we try to navigate this, I believe (most of) you are nice people at heart and some of you are letting yourselves down a bit.
But please let’s all be a bit nicer to each other while we try to navigate this
But you do have to be sure that you remain nice too. What you call out as bigotry may well just be an example of nuance based on that individual's experience and exposure to TG being expressed as an opinion.
I'd like to be able to share my experience of TG challenges and experiences, but I can't really say anything due to safeguarding reasons around the child in our care.
agreed. As I say to my son, if you press that button you'd better be sure you're doing it for the right reasons. I probably err too far to the side of caution at times.
And also note - even bigotry is a nuanced issue. None of it is acceptable, but saying someone has expressed bigoted views (label the act, not the person) isn't the same as calling them a full on paid up Nazi.
johndoh
But you do have to be sure that you remain nice too. What you call out as bigotry may well just be an example of nuance based on that individual’s experience and exposure to TG being expressed as an opinion.
I was about to post similar in reply to Cougar, who said:
Cougar
I do. It’s quite easy really. Stop othering and start being nice to people.
Dismissing people's concerns as "squawking", accusing people of "white knighting" for their "ignorant" friends etc is not being nice.
Besides, it does nothing to bring people round to your way of thinking- quite the opposite, it makes people dig their heels in.
Lovely post Jonv and its nice to see someone with real skin in the game accept nuance.
thats been my issue mainly. People presenting what is a highly nuanced and difficult thing as a binary proposition
Dismissing people’s concerns as “squawking”, accusing people of “white knighting” for their “ignorant” friends etc is not being nice.
Besides, it does nothing to bring people round to your way of thinking- quite the opposite, it makes people dig their heels in.
For what it's worth, TJ and I have been discussing this out of band.
I'm used to sparring with him but I seemingly genuinely offended him here, and for that I publicly apologise. Terms like "ignorant" are often used as an insult but don't have to be, I'm ignorant of many things.
Ta cougar
Terms like “ignorant” are often used as an insult but don’t have to be
They will always be read as such, on the internet and probably always in real.life too. Every word has a context, or meta information if you like.
But please let’s all be a bit nicer to each other while we try to navigate this
But you do have to be sure that you remain nice too. What you call out as bigotry may well just be an example of nuance based on that individual’s experience and exposure to TG being expressed as an opinion.
I’d like to be able to share my experience of TG challenges and experiences, but I can’t really say anything due to safeguarding reasons around the child in our care.
@johndoh I agree with you, but I do wonder why you wrote that to theotherjonv's understanding, non-judgemental and deeply empathetic post -- bearing in mind that all theotherjonv's posts that I've read have been similar?
I don't want to now misunderstand you, but from what you've said I wonder when, if at all, you think someone can rightfully be called a bigot, transphobic, or similar? Bearing in mind that very often, people's views on something like trans issues are shaped by media, not direct experience.
I frequent a lot of leftist spaces online -- less so in the real world nowadays -- and I will be the first to admit that accusations of terf, fascist, racist, etc., often get thrown around prematurely and counterproductively. But this of course doesn't mean they aren't accurate well over half of the time. And the dangers of not confronting discriminatory behaviour and views through fear of making false accusations are also considerable.
May I suggest a group hug?
but I do wonder why you wrote that to theotherjonv’s understanding, non-judgemental and deeply empathetic post
Good question – but I wrote it in response to what he said ('Where I see bigotry i will call it out') – all I was trying to do was explain that we are all in different places at different times with different experiences and we all need to back off on name-calling, no matter what we think we are hearing. Some people tried to get across points of view from where they are and were called out and it wasn't really helping. As a bunch of (mainly) older people on here we are all on different points of the path. Gawd knows if any of this makes sense.
May I suggest a group hug?
Can I be the littlest spoon? Assuming that's what you had in mind
Bearing in mind that very often, people’s views on something like trans issues are shaped by media, not direct experience.
It's a shame in a way that the lengthy conversation TJ and I just had was behind closed doors, as it were. We hit a lot of points raised here.
There is a degree of "all lives matter" going on, because as soon as you speak out in favour of one group the obvious inference is that you're opposed to another. The notion that anyone in favour of trans rights must automatically against cis women's rights is an easy conclusions to reach, but it's a nonsense.
We've got people like Piers Morgan flogging the notion that he can simply self-identify as a helicopter, and it's just pouring petrol on the whole conversation. This is not how self-identification works. It is a deeply fundamental misconception.
If the concern is that a bloke may be able access a women's refuge simply because he's claimed to be a woman then someone has screwed up. Which of course is possible, mistakes happen (and create tabloid headlines). But that's not a trans rights issue, or a women's rights issue, it's a lack of due diligence. Refuges have a screening process, someone explained it on a previous thread.
Of course he may. He may suggest anything he likes. He can suggest stripping you naked, rolling you in gravy and chucking you into the lion enclosure at Whipsnade if he wants to. Equally you may ignore his suggestions.
😁
Thanks for once again insinuating I am a bigot poly. Nice
I didn't, I carefully chose my words to help you understand how your post sounded. I didn't make any judgement about the substance of the content, or the person who posted them. I was hoping you'd go back and read your post again and apply your obvious intellect to the words you used.
Calling trans people "obviously very troubled" was rather offensive.
What I think you were trying to say, I agree with. I think you could have picked your language better, and then perhaps nobody would have implied you were a bigot. Sometimes we might be being prejudiced without realising. Sometimes we just come across that way be stumbling across our words. I'd hope that if you know this is a controversial topic where you tend to upset people that you'd pick your words especially carefully.
OK
I'll reflect that back tho. Thats how your post seemed to me
Once again I think we hit the difficulties of text based discussion.
Hi Cougar.
I'm interested in how you think "self-ID" works.
I'm sure you are, Simon.
What specifically would you like to know?
I would be interested in learning more about your understanding of "self-ID" and how it works.
At the risk of speaking for Cougar, I would imagine he thinks it works much the same way as it does in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland and all the other countries where gender recognition procedures are based on self determination.
Thanks Bruce for your contribution.
Would be good to find out Cougars understanding of the subject.
You still around Cougar?
Ooh, this is exciting. I can't help but feel there is a cunning ploy afoot!
Alright.
Anyone can self-identify because at the end of the day there is precisely one person who knows how that person thinks and feels. And it is no-one else's place to tell them that they are wrong.
However. This concept has been weaponised by shitbags like Piers Morgan who trot out moronic arguments like "well, I'll just self-identify as an attack helicopter then." But the point this utter melt is (probably deliberately) missing is that it is really difficult to get that identification recognised or accepted. If you (say) wish to gain access to a women's refuge then there is a screening process; you cannot just slap a bit of lipstick on and proclaim "I'm a lady." It just doesn't work like that, there are safeguards in place.
Yes of course, mistakes happen, and they're generally headline news when they do. And of course, some people will try and abuse the system because criminals will criminal. TJ said something to me via DM about "fake trans" and that's probably as good a way as any of explaining it, I don't doubt that some people may flat-out lie but such occurrences are surely vanishingly rare. Because ultimately if you wanted to be a bit of a sex pest in women's toilets then there's the square root of jeff all stopping you from just walking on in there to start with, it doesn't require an elaborate charade. I almost did it by accident at the hospital a couple of days ago.
Same question back at you, what's your understanding?
Ooh, this is exciting. I can’t help but feel there is a cunning ploy afoot!
I mean,
You know that joke about how my dad was stealing roadworks?
Cougar. Thanks for the reply. Might take me a bit to digest all of that.
Thanks again.
It’s amazing to me that so much of society wants to see men’s feelings prioritized over women’s rights, that allowing women to have their own spaces is so controversial. I guess it shouldn’t be, sexism being a well known thing, but still…
How would you propose we classify those “who do or did or will or would… produce small mobile gametes, sperm” but were surgically assigned as female at birth by a well-meaning doctor?
Male. Whatever their sex was observed (surgically assigned? Wtf?!) as at birth, they are male.
Why can’t people just be allowed to be who they want to be and love who they want to love in life?
Why is so bloody difficult to let people just “be”?
Because a hairy builder from Bradford might put on a frock and hang around in women’s toilets. Obvs.
Because when transwomen be accepted as women, women lose out. Every women’s space becomes a mixed sex space. Not just in toilets, but men in women’s refuges, prisons, organisations and clubs, men in their sporting events.
But do you accept that people can change gender, which is the social construct rather than a scientific ‘fact’? Because if you do then why can a man not become a woman and v/v? You are conflating sex (m/f) with gender (man/woman) and I reject your definitions of a woman as an adult female on that basis.
Give me your definition of ‘gender’ and ‘woman’ and I’ll let you know where I stand.
One can act in a way that conforms (in as much as possible) to opposite sex stereotypes but that doesn’t change one’s sex. However they act, dress or modify their bodies, men remain men.
is also a scientific fact that you can “feel” more like woman than a man, whatever body you might have, and vice versa. In the same way as it is a scientific fact that someone can be depressed, or happy. As a person you are more than just your physical body.
So if someone wants to base their gender on how they feel emotionally, or whatever, rather than the body they happen to have, then that’s good enough for me. And it cannot be dismissed because it allegedly doesn’t comply with scientific requirements, a person’s mind is also part of the science imo
Whatever it might mean for someone to say they base their gender on how they feel or identify, it’s irrelevant in terms of their sex. They remain either male or female. To say a man feels like a woman is only to say that this man feels like he believes a woman would feel - he can’t actually feel like a woman because he is not one.
And what is ‘man’ or ‘woman’ anyway? They are simply words in English, with no real definition other than the customary one. In the same way that there’s no such thing as a fish. So why can’t we expand those definitions a bit? Really, why not?
As above, a woman is an adult human female. The term relates to the sex of the individual.
To expand the definition to include men (whatever they feel or believe themselves to be) as women is to say that women as a sex based class do not exist and that women should have no sex based rights.
What about those that have differences in sexual development? its not clear black and white. a significant number of people have this differences in sexual development. androgen insensitivity and so on.
To me this is all on a spectrum. I have no issue with people identifying a they wish. I have no issue with trans folk having rights including the right to be who they want to be. Basically its none of my buisness
My reservations are around when these rights clash with others rights potentially and actually and seeking solutions around that issue.
Oh - and the whole toilets thing is utter humbug. who the flip cares? Just use a cubicle and get on with your business if it bothers you
too many folk use ridiculous ideas to attempt to discredit trans. Do what ever the flip yo want so long as it does not adversely affect others - and thats in all spheres of life not just sexuality
edit - fiddlesticks sucked back in. dagnamitt
(surgically assigned? Wtf?!) as at birth
Read some things. Google is that way. ➡
Because when transwomen be accepted as women, women lose out. Every women’s space becomes a mixed sex space.
So you'd be happy with trans men being in "women's space" because you haven't accepted them as men?
Re - sex and gender.
Whether you agree or not, if in the UK then there is a defined difference...
So that's the current frame of reference this discussion sits in currently.
Personally (and I admit that at the moment it's a bit of a pipe dream) I think long term we need to abandon all of these definitions and look for new ones, as they're actively being used to hinder progress in this area by all sides of the arguments IMO. Language and meaning constantly change, we just maybe need to force the issue on this one.
Its also generational. I work with teenagers and for most of them, gender identity just doesn't feature on their list of things to make a fuss about. Of course there are always those who struggle to empathise for personal or cultural reasons, but the vast majority IME will not deadname or misgender.
Closest I've come to a solution in my own mind without creating a totally new paradigm is to see gender as a continuum. At one end would be someone who exhibits only the social and behavioural characteristics seen as traditionally masculine, and at the other those displaying only the corresponding traditionally female characteristics. Sharing the space in the middle would be those balanced between the two, or who feel neither direction applies to them.
I think that's where we'll end up eventually, but it's going to take a long time sadly.
the whole toilets thing is utter humbug. who the flip cares? Just use a cubicle and get on with your business if it bothers you
This strikes me as a question where we (men) should zip our privileged and defer to women. The whole question of being vulnerable (semi-dressed and/or alone) in a confined space just impacts women differently from men.
(I am not in any way suggesting any malice on your part).
Whether you agree or not, if in the UK then there is a defined difference…
...for the particular purpose of reporting on the UK's progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Different words get used by different parts of government for different reasons all the time - and it doesn't mean we as citizens need to follow them.
What is a "person"? The NHS and HMRC have completely different answers...
This strikes me as a question where we (men) should zip our privileged and defer to women. The whole question of being vulnerable (semi-dressed and/or alone) in a confined space just impacts women differently from men.
Whilst you're not wrong, that all has sod all to do with sex or gender identity. If someone is going to get a bit rapey then how they identify or claim to identify is way beyond irrelevant. If a door says "women only" then a potential sex pest isn't going to look at that and think "well, I can't possibly imagine how I might get into there then, best pretend to be a transsexual." They're just going to walk in.
Not wearing a skirt didn't slow down Jimmy Savile now, did it.
Non of my TERF friends have any issue with loos. its just not on the radar. My ;local swimming pool that is 30+ years old has a unisex changing room - just rows and rows of cubicles. Never been in a nightclub when there is a queue for the ladies loo? the gents will usually be invaded IME.
this one is a non issue
Isn't the simplest solution, just remove gender altogether?
It solves all notions of which box to tick on a form.
Or to turn the question on its head, why do we need gender?
that all has sod all to do with sex or gender identity.
And yet, it seems like a not insignificant number of women seem to feel quite strongly about the subject. 🤔
Never been in a nightclub when there is a queue for the ladies loo? the gents will usually be invaded IME.
Not your most compelling argument.
However, I should obey my own suggestion and keep my trap shut.
Or to turn the question on its head, why do we need gender?
IMO we don't. But. We have it and it's going to take a while to get rid of it.
Give me your definition of ‘gender’ and ‘woman’ and I’ll let you know where I stand.
The short version is in my post. Gender is the societal construction, the way someone feels, acts, identifies, etc. Sex is the chromosome definition (accepting that is not a completely binary answer)
The link to the ONS site is pretty close.
You said
a woman is an adult human female. The term relates to the sex of the individual.
You seem to be making your position clear, that it is the adult version aligned to birth sex. And cannot be changed therefore?
So by that position you do not recognise my 2nd child to be my son? How far do you take that, would you refuse to use his preferred names and pronouns? To you, he's a woman no matter his own preferences?