Debunking some myths

Just read this thread as a lurker. Bibi really didn't know how to debate. You can tell when someone has no supporting facts when they just throw personal insults.

Where do you draw the line? Are you aying you'll accept a transwoman post-op? Or are you saying you refuse to acknowledge them as a woman at any point... even though the law and most of society does?

I accept transwomen in life, no problem. I do not accept them in female spaces, be they pre-op, post-op or anywhere in between: they are male and have no right to be there.

Are you okay with transwomen who pass - ie those who look obviously feminine and unless they said something or you ran a chromosomal test on, you'd assume they were cis-women?

Am I OK with them coming into female only spaces? No!

Thanks for putting that right, Bettybeans. Our opponents pump out lies and keep repeating them, so we just have to keep reminding people of the truth. Thanks also to AliceToo for checking the facts.

No, that's not what happened. Edward Lord (Freemason- you know the org that bans women members) ran a ridiculous 'consultation' on the issue, dismissed around 50% of the 40,000 responses on random spurious grounds which have never been fully explained, then claimed 65% of remaining responses supported the change - and made it happen.

It was always going to be the case regardless of what anyone else did or said.

Excuse me but I'm concerned because I read somewhere that the Man Friday protests last year resulted in a female only swimming pool on Haampstead Heath being redesignated as a Mixed sex swimming pool.

My question would be is this correct?

If so, how we need to exercise great caution to avoid protest having negative outcomes for our liberties.

Why do you call the Transcrimeuk.com site squalid, Pallas81? I could understand calling a crime squalid, but not the report of it. The information is useful, especially in these days of police calling rapists women if that’s what the rapist wants!

Men who become transwomen commit crimes at the same rate as other men. And almost half the male criminals wanting to be transferred to women’s prisons are sex offenders. These are real statistics, not made-up ones. Don’t you think women have a right to know this?

twitter.com/lgbtqnation/status/1071857391589765121?s=19

I think transactivists, in the main, don't care what any one else's viewpoint is. They just want everyone to agree with them and let them proceed on their merry way.

A lot of the trans activists seem have a very warped view of radical feminism IME.

They seem to confuse "radical feminist" with "boring, conservative old woman who wants to stop us breaking down stereotypes and to keep everyone in gendered boxes"

I think half of them haven't got a clue how ironic (or just plain wrong) that is - or that what radfems advocate wrt breaking down gender stereotypes is more radical than their position, not less.

In fact Rufus the contrary is true - it is the trans allies who don't understand gender, and more specifically don't understand that "gender" has two quite distinct meanings in this discussion. The first is as the word has traditionally been used in the social sciences, to connote a system of socially and culturally constructed limitations on behaviours, roles, occupations, activities and dress which are considered by that culture to be appropriate for one sex or the other. (As an anthropologist will tell you, some of these cross cultures with some consistency - child rearing is almost always a "female" activity, hunting big game or ploughing with heavy draft animals almost always "male", whereas some are culturally variable - Medieval England, weaving is a "man's job", Medieval Iceland, weaving is a "woman's job"). The second meaning is of course "gender" as "internal sense of maleness or femaleness", much beloved of transactivists

Radical feminists see gender in its first connotation as an oppressive system from which men and women need to be liberated. They tend to see gender in its second connotation as a made up concept like eternal souls, transubstantiation (and transmigration - in fact it has a lot in common with that, in that you're being asked to believe that a lady soul can end up in a male body).

I'd say we rad fems have a much more nuanced and clearly thought out understanding of gender than the likes of Bibi upthread.

Posters keep saying that radfems are conflating gender and sex

Just about every thread now

When no one is actually doing that

Weird

Got a Scooby Doo earworm now.... !!!!!

@bibijayne
yoohoooooo, where are you...?

She does! I look at her sometimes and blink, wondering where my stocky frizzy little 12-year-old went.

I do mistake my teenage son and daughter for each other rather a lot when wearing the wrong specs though. Definitely turning into my grandmother.

(Not that DS tends to wear tea dresses, but he has a swirly coat that he's very fond of, and as I say, wrong specs...)

have you met DD?? Definitely would have been more suited to our era than her own.

I miss my super short pixie cut. Ah for the bone structure (and sylphlike figure) of youth... I bet dd looks great 👍

Bibi we know you are busy and all, and don't want to enter a long debate(!) but can you answer this with a simple yes or no:
Can humans change sex?

When I were a lass you could happily ‘be a girl’ with a pixie cut, a tea dress and biker boots - have you met DD?? Definitely would have been more suited to our era than her own.

The supposed purpose was to claim that people would be able to go into single sex sessions if it was easier to get a Gender Recognition Certificate.

No, the Man Friday campaign aims to highlight the absurdity of self ID and to make organisations who have changed their policies already as if it was in law have a think about the implications.

It also inconveniences men. It doesn’t harm them - the lady in question is always extremely polite, but it inconveniences them. Why is that important? Well firstly because no bugger is listening to us women ... but It’s important because men don’t want to give up their single sex spaces either but at the moment none of this TRA stuff is affecting or impacting them. And so they have no idea or they don’t care to speak out.

If men are inconvenienced- what then? god forbid if the masons had to admit women! Or if the gentlemen’s clubs where the power plays are carried out had to admit women - then men might just realise that this is problematic. And stand with us to maintain the single sex exemptions to the equality act. Those are the bits under threat from self ID, the bits we are all worried about. 

So ManFriday has raised the profile of this issue in a non aggressive way. No one has been shouted at, hurt, or had abuse like TERF shouted at them. It’s a very civilised protest method and I support it wholeheartedly.

That's exactly it, Bowlofbabelfish.

It was reported (may actually have happened) that two women went into a "men only" swimming session. The supposed purpose was to claim that people would be able to go into single sex sessions if it was easier to get a Gender Recognition Certificate. The implication of course is that they showed their GRCs first ...

No, it was to show that someone who looks exactly like the sex they are, but claims to be the opposite sex without showing any proof at all, will be admitted to a "single-sex" environment.

And to show that this is already happening, without waiting for any self-id legislation.

How happy is everyone with that situation?

So these narrow gender stereotypes are a bit crap really.

Yes. The idea that female & male can be signified by people's taste in clothes or makeup is regressive & sexist. Take a certain celebrity's statement that their girly side makes them like high heels & nail varnish, or the idea that someone is female when they wear a dress or male when they wear a suit. That's a strong reinforcement of gender stereotypes that do nobody any favours.

Feminists would much rather see a world where anyone can wear / look / act how they want but everyone knows that doesn't change their sex.

Kurt consumer..? Cobain! Clearly my autocorrect is millenial... 🤦🏻‍♀️

I agree with teacup.

Gender stereotyping is narrowing and solidifying. Just appearances for example ...When I were a lass you could happily ‘be a girl’ with a shaved head, a pixie cut, a tea dress and biker boots, a suit, long hair, short hair and any or no makeup. Now I look around at teenage girls and the vast majority look the same. Long swishy straight hair. A particular makeup look. Very similar clothes.
Boys in my day (late 80s/90s) were wearing dresses - look at kurt consumer for example. Frock, eyeliner, definitely a bloke. There was no ‘fit this box or you’re not a boy.’ You could be a boy and be gay. You could be a girl and wear what you wanted and not be ‘girly.’ The culture of sexuality as you entered puberty was far less toxic than it is just now. I’m not sure how old you are but it was SO different to today.

So these narrow gender stereotypes are a bit crap really. They force young women particularly into a very sexualised stereotype too early. I can totally see why 70% of presentations at gender clinics are girls - it must be absolutely hideous to hit puberty in this climate, especially if you’re already non neurotypical or have any existing issues. These kids are mainly not suffering from gender dysphoria - they’re saying ‘stop the world I want to get off’ and I have massive sympathy with that because it’s an embodiment of how gender expectations oppress us all.

So feminists have always failed against gender. We’ve always been for women and men wearing and acting outside those narrow boxes. More men taking maternity leave would benefit us all. More women deciding yes they can be engineers benefits us all. Smashing those boxes benefits everyone. Except maybe the porn industry but frankly they can eff off.

So as teacup says - we’ve been fighting for our rights, for men to be released from these boxes too. For gay rights. For marriage equality. We are in general a pretty accommodating and reasonable set of women.

And now we are saying that self ID in particular is a danger to women, and to children of both sexes. Have we suddenly decided to be bigoted gits or perhaps have we seen whatcthe consequences of self ID would be?

Do YOU understand what the consequences would be? For single sex spaces? For the ability of women from faith communities to participate in public life? And particularly how it will affect could safeguarding? Because it will dilute current practices to the point they’re useless. And that’s a big worry.