Debunking some myths

As I've said - you're not open to hearing proof

I've asked you for proof several times. You're just talking mince now.

@Bibijayne why not post a summary of your position for the benefit of lurkers? It must be fairly easy for you to summarise your response to these points, given how firmly you know that you are right.

No women are oppressed because of sex BY gender.

Sex is the justification, gender is the opression.

@whyaresquishiesnotsquishy

As I've said - you're not open to hearing proof :) there's plenty available. I see no need to waste my time on a lost cause :)

Gender is a social construct that has come about as a way to keep men and women in specific places on the basis of their sex.

@Moonkissedlegs women are marginalised because if sex AND gender.

Could you expand on this?

I've responded to your points. You just don't like/ agree with my responses.

You have not responded with anything other than your own opinion. You have not responded to the actual evidence I posted, not offered any that you have found.

All you are doing is repeating your dogma to us.

If you'd like to join a debate, please can you bring some objective proof to it.

We know what you believe, you've made that clear. But if you want to change our minds, we'll need more than just you repeating what you believe and insulting us.

I asked you the following directly, twice. Are you not able to answer it?

You mentioned "extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research" for example. I'm particularly keen to see this - what do you think it proves?

@Moonkissedlegs women are marginalised because if sex AND gender. Which is why I don't agree that those spaces should be segregated on sex alone.

@whyaresquishiesnotsquishy

I've responded to your points. You just don't like/ agree with my responses.

I'm posting so that other people, browsing these forums can see that not everyone is a horrible bigot and that people are willing to remind this echo chamber that other views exist. I'm not here to try to persuade you that your deeply entrenched views are wrong - that wouldn't work and would be a total waste of time and effort. If I had any hope that you were open to debate and listening to other views i'd happily dig through journal after journal to back up the points I've made. But there's very little point is there? You're entrenched in your bigotry and no amount of reason or reference is going to change that.

So that should have said

You can't 'identify' into womanhood because you can't 'identify' out of it.

Dont know where the 'if' came from!

@Moonkissedlegs saying that trans-people are persecuted and marginalised does not detract from other groups who are also persecuted and marginalised. Your argument is akin to saying that if antisemitism exists, there's no room for any other kind of racial prejudice. That's simply not true. It's entirely possible that people suffer discrimination based on gender identity and other people can also suffer sex discrimination.

You have totally missed my point. I didn't list those examples as 'reasons that trans people can't also be marginalised in society'. I listed them as examples of why 'gender identity' is a load of old bollocks when it comes to how we decide how to segregate in certain situations, on the basis of sex (ie. Refuges, prisons and changing rooms). We should segregate by sex not gender identity, because women are oppressed by sex not gender identity.

If you can't 'identify' into womanhood because you can't 'identify' out of it. If you could, don't you think there would be millions of women the world over queuing up to do so?

Out of interest, what rights would you like trans people to have that you don't think they currently have?

I'm sorry, just realised that I've only posted the definition as an image which isn't very accessible. Here it is:

"..any person whose gender identity and / or gender expression does not conform to conventional ideas of male or female gender, or the sex they were assigned at birth. This includes all binary and non-binary gender identities and those who have an absence of gender identity."

I think several people have covered the point about lesbians so I won't worry about that, but Bibi, I'd be interested on your thoughts on my earlier point about the increasingly vague definition of trans. You seem to be mainly focusing on severely dysphoric, passing post-op transwomen. Stonewall's definition could be summed up as anyone who either has a gender identity that doesn't exactly match a sex-role stereotype, or who doesn't have a gender identity at all.

@Bibijayne you haven't offered any proof, or replied directly to any of my points. All you seem to have is personal insults or sweeping statements.

Do you think you you might be able to respond to the actual content of my posts, rather than attack me?

You've made lots of statements but backed none of them up with evidence. Go on, give it a go...

You mentioned "extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research" for example. I'm particularly keen to see this - what do you think it proves?

If you don't offer any attempt at proof and continue to post personal insults or statements with no attempt to provide proof, then I will have to conclude you're here to sealion. But you're not, surely, are you?...

@sanluca - I think it's pretty hateful to say that you don't believe in the experiences of a marginalised group of people (those experiences are backed by extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research) and that you have a right to debate their validity as human beings and their rights because it doesn't fit with your world view. And a great many cis-women, like myself, don't hold your views and find a lot of your discourse highly offensive and rude

Wow, jump to conclusions much? This is a stereotypical tactic for demonizing a person by making nasty, rude and agressive statements as if the person in question made them and you are calling them out, when in fact nothing of that kind actually happened. Have you taken a course in online bullying? Because in that case you passed with flying colours.

@whyaresquishiesnotsquishy I have a problem with poor critical reasoning and thinking as demonstrated by yourself repeatedly in this thread. I highly recommend you read more on common logical fallacies and critical thinking. You might be less inclined to use them at every juncture then. :)

And yes, it is bigoted. 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?

What is bigoted, is to refuse to acknowledge someone else's consensual relationship because you don't agree with the terminology they have used.

If male bodied people take the word lesbian for themselves, it's an attack on lesbians. It's not bigoted to refuse to accept a male bodied person with a penis as a lesbian.

Apologies, if my post about crimes is hard to read! I meant to put this line at the bottom as it follows on from the line saying there are 126 female prisoners there for sex crimes:

Given that there are about 4,000 women in prison, that means about 3% are there for sex related crimes.

I think many of your assertions are based on the assumption that all men or people who used to be men are going to sexually assault or abuse women.

Do you have a problem with logic?

Nobody is saying that ALL men will sexually assault women. If we knew which ones were going to, there would be no need for single sex facilities in the first place, we could just keep out the abusers!

But as we don't know of a system that will keep the abusers out, we segregate men and women.

You have offered no proof that transwomen stop being like men, as far as crime is concerned, as soon as they say they ID as women.

there is ZERO respectable evidence that self identified transgender females represent any threat to non-transgender females of any age

If that's the case, then how do you account for the fact that half of transwomen prisoners are either sex offenders or the most dangerous category A prisoners?

Women prisoners simply don't have the same profile.

Given that there are about 4,000 women in prison, that means about 3% are there for sex related crimes.

I don't see how you can assert transwomen are not a risk, given those figures? Not all transwomen of course, but it's not all men either is it?

From this page:

It is extremely rare for women to be convicted of sex offences. In fact, over 99% of all sex offenders in prison in England and Wales are male. Figures released in 2016 show there were 13,808 male sex offenders in prison. In contrast, there were only 126 female sex offenders in prison; however, even this small number is artificially high because it will now also include [transwomen] with GRCs whose sex offending will be counted as having been committed by females.

I think many of your assertions are based on the assumption that all men or people who used to be men are going to sexually assault or abuse women. That's simply not true.

To take @whyaresquishiesnotsquishy 's point. You are not obliged to fancy or have relationships with anyone who you do not want to have a relationship with. That's not prejudicial and I think most people would agree that if someone tells you it is, they're talking BS. What is bigoted, is to refuse to acknowledge someone else's consensual relationship because you don't agree with the terminology they have used.

@Moonkissedlegs saying that trans-people are persecuted and marginalised does not detract from other groups who are also persecuted and marginalised. Your argument is akin to saying that if antisemitism exists, there's no room for any other kind of racial prejudice. That's simply not true. It's entirely possible that people suffer discrimination based on gender identity and other people can also suffer sex discrimination.

There seem to be so many illogical leaps made on this board. A lot of people seem terribly fond of the slippery slope fallacy. Which is why this forum has such a terrible reputation. It's a toxic echo chamber where a small group of people continuously validate their own bigotry to feel better.

*that should say - The long term effects of TEENS and YOUNG PEOPLE taking hormones for transition have not been studied

those experiences are backed by extensive scientific/ medical and psychological research

What do you think is backed by extensive research exactly?

The long term health of people who transition isn't something that's been extensively covered - as it's simply too new that people are doing this in larger numbers. Early evidence does seem to say that transition is not a "cure" and may even lead to worse outcomes (e.g. on mental health)/

The long term effects of puberty blockers on children for transition have not been studied, again as it's too new - although there is plenty of evidence that they can cause harm. puberty blockers are NOT licensed for treating dysphoric kids, they're being used off label.

The long term effects of children taking hormones for transition have not been studied, again as it's too new - and again there is plenty of evidence that they can cause harm.

Places like the Tavistock clinic do NOT do long term follow-up.

There are plenty of detransitioners starting to come out of the woodwork, but they don't get nearly the support that transitioning people do.

What exactly do you have proof of?

a right to debate their validity as human beings

This is childish nonsense. Please debate in a thoughtful manner using facts, and analysis. Not whimpering ‘you alllll haaaaaaaaate meeee.’ That’s not an argument, it’s shouting bigot to shut people down.

Nobody on here denies gender dysphoria exists. Nobody hates trans people or wants to remove the legal protections they already have. We are concerned about safety. About legal protections for women and girls and children of both sexes. These are serious issues that threaten the rights women have fought for for decades.

But I think you'll find you're on the wrong side of comprehensive medical and psychological research.

I am a scientist. I can categorically, and with absolute certainty, say you are incorrect.

Sex is immutable in humans.
Gender means very little. You want to smash gender stereotypes? I’m right behind you, cheering you on. I want to smash them too. Everyone should be able to wear, and ‘present’ as however they want.

There are some circumstances in which biological sex is important. These are generally wherevthe safty and dignity ofbthe sexes are paramount. Refuges, prisons, medical care, bathrooms and toilets, etc.

Since men cannot change sex and become women (which you accept? Given your assertion that sex is chromosomally determined?) then men should be able to be excluded from those specific spaces, as is currently the law.

If you want to change that law, you are accepting that protection of women and girls from Male violence is removed. And that safeguarding for children of BOTH sexes (and any gender you care to name) is diluted to he point of meaninglessness.

What extra rights do you want men who present as women to have that they do not already have?

Do you understand that this is a safety issue?