Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

I'm on my phone could someone please put a clicky link on

RaisinsAndApple

But if you're talking about two people and you keep saying 'they' to refer to one of them, it makes no sense, because they means more than one. I've often read something where the person is referred to as they and I've had to go back to find out who else they are talking about. Of all the pronouns I think 'they' is the most inappropriate and confusing.

And it was me who is of the opinion that terf is losing its meaning. I'm not sure why you think that me saying transwomen are not women makes me an 'intolerant hater' though.

It's the very basis of my objection.

I absolutely think transwomen should not face any more discrimination than anyone else. That's why I think transgender should be a protected chacteristic, not that it should legally mean they can become a man or a woman.

The sort of discrimination a transwoman faces is because she is perceived as a man identifying as a woman. It is completely different to the discrimination that women face.

Signed and shared

We finally have a UK specific petition regarding the Gender Identity Bill, it sets out very clearly and without hysterics the case for having the Bill amended and placed under deeper scrutiny to protect young children and young adults, please sign and share if you are in agreement: citizengo.org/en-gb/pc/41304-say-not-dangerous-gender-identity-bill?tc=fb&tcid=32808372

And what happens if you are talking about two transwomen, both of whom use the pronoun they? How does anyone know which one you're referring to?

Ray would have done better writing in the first person. Her would sound more genuine and less like a pretentious twat.

Also Ray Finch, the social media editor or EF is described as "they" not he or she. They have BAs in gender studies and therefore they reject gender totally! FFS

I can't help feeling very strongly that this is all a smokescreen for the further domination and oppression of women by middle aged, heterosexual men who take our gender and claim it as their own. We are allowed NOTHING of our own and this is not to be protected. If we object we are classed as bigots.

I was just reading a research paper. Its conclusions are:

"We consider the sex-specific demography of two of the largest migrations in recent European prehistory. Using genome-wide ancient genetic data from multiple Eurasian populations spanning the last 10,000 years, we find no evidence of sex-biased migrations from Anatolia, despite the shift to patrilocality associated with the spread of farming. In contrast, we infer a massive male-biased migration from the steppe during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age."

Genome-wide ancient genetic data is not a social construct. Sociological conclusions might be drawn from its mapping, but the sex-specific data used is just that - sex specific.

'Gender neutral' is meaningless if you really think about it, and the opposite of what they're pushing for.

A toilet could have a sign up saying "All genders welcome" but still only allow one biological sex.

Or it could allow members of both sexes who identify as a limited range of genders. Which is what the transactivists want and would be sex neutral.

What extra rights do the "gender fluid" require that wouldn't make a mockery of spaces either segregated by sex or gender?

'Gender fluidity' would be a non issue if we weren't bound by gender stereotypes. Its the conflation of gender with sex which is the problem. I would wish that everyone could 'present' however the heck they wanted (within whatever standards of neatness and decorum are apt) without discrimination. But that should not casually override biological sex. Sex is what matters and must take precedence for anything where biological differences are important- sport, health, reproduction (duh) etc.

It might be a reference to people like Pips Bunce:

www.out-standing.org/newsroom/credit-suisse-lead-the-way-on-workplace-gender-fluidity-awareness/

Part time cross dressers? I don't think they'd even have to go that far. Look at Danielle.

Just read the Women Analyzing Policy link already posted upthread:

womenanalysingpolicyonwomen.wordpress.com

One thing I am finding particularly alarming is that it seems to be saying that part-time cross-dressers would be able to demand access to female spaces--there is no requirement to "live as a woman" (whatever the hell that means) full-time.

This will certainly massively increase the number of men tempted to take advantage of such rules.

Doctors and scientists are afraid to say what they think, Bambambini It's only the odd one whose position - tenure and seniority - means they can say what they believe.

For the rest it's a scary climate. You can lose your job, wreck your career, for dissenting from the totally uncritical trans narrative. In some places just questioning whether a patient with serious MH issues is a suitable candidate for surgery is classed as conversion therapy, which is against the law, ffs.
.
There's a blog called Youth Trans Critical Professionals. They have to blog anonymously for fear of the consequences. It's a very weird situation.,

I wish scientists and doctors would come out to say what they truly think about it. I'd welcome all views - Even if they think there is evidence to show a biological/scientific reason that backs the ideology that gender should take precedence over biology as we understand it. I just don't trust the evidence i see being put forward as being impartial.

I wonder what would happen if the legislation is properly challenged in court.

If a transwoman is a woman, the question would have to be to ask for evidence.

Since nothing in science backs up the assertion. You would still be left with a feeling in someone's head.

I think a lot of people generally believe there is some science that backs it up. The 'born in the wrong body' narrative seems to have been accepted without question.

I think if most people thought there was no science whatsoever to back any of this up and it was literally just down to somebody having a feeling (that they can't describe and doesn't stand up to scrutiny), they might be surprised.

The logic is completely absurd. However, plenty of people will say 'oh they aren't representative of trans people, most trans people don't think that way' whilst refusing to acknowledge that if you follow the logic it takes you to Danielle Muscato being a literal woman and sex being socially constructed.

You have Blair white making YouTube videos slating Danielle Muscato for making no effort to pass but if woman is just a state of mind then Danielle is just as much a woman as Blair is.
You have liberal feminists saying that trans women are women but knowing they mean trans women on hormones and under gender identity clinics, without acknowledging that their logic means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman.
Liberals saying that Caitlin Jenner is a brave woman whilst Rachel dolezal is a racist.
There is no logical consistency at all.

raisin

Yes. And of course, none of the ideology is logical.

I just can't imagine how stupid/blind/misogynistic you would have to be to create a legal definition of the word woman that applied to people with penises.

God knows what they were smoking that day.

Thanks Pencils' I was wondering why I couldn't find the exact wording of the new bill!

nauticant - that's really grim

The Philosopher's Arms on Radio 4 right now is covering gender identity and "the male-female binary" and is making a right old mess of confusing gender and sex.

They seem to be content with the concept that intersex means that binary is an illusion and everything can be considered to be inbetween. Sex is mutable and is a matter of one's point of view.

This is very much in the mainstream. Depressing.