Debunking some myths

a right to debate their validity as human beings

Please point to anyone, anywhere, debating the validity of trans people are human beings? It doesn't exist.

This kind of rhetoric is inflammatory, untrue and helpful.

You know when John Worboys raped all those women in his taxi, do you think he did that on the basis of their sex or their gender identity.

You know when Malala wasn't allowed to go to school, was that on the basis of her sex or her gender identity?

You know when all those girls in Rotherham and Telford were groomed and raped, did that happen on the basis of their sex or their gender identity?

You know how two women a week are murdered by their male partner or ex, is that on the basis of their sex of their gender identity?

You know when a woman of child bearing age is turned down for that promotion, is that on the basis of her sex or her gender identity?

I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

No one is saying the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

The point is that trans activism is a political ideology. And that ideology clearly states that transwomen with penises can be lesbians and that lesbians who are same-sex attracted are bigots.

Lesbian culture is being erased. Just look at the state of Stonewall FFS. And please don't tell me it's fine because they have a Lesbian CEO. That's like saying Tory policy is great for women as they have a woman leader - i.e. total bullshit.

Young lesbians are made to feel they're bigots for not wanting to accept dick. This is rape culture FFS.

This is the kind of nonsense that's going on.

I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

I don't think anyone here is saying the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

The point is that trans activism is a political ideology. And that ideology clearly states that transwomen with penises can be lesbians and that lesbians who are same-sex attracted are bigots.

Lesbian culture is being erased. Just look at the state of Stonewall FFS. And please don't tell me it's fine because they have a Lesbian CEO. That's like saying Tory policy is great for women as they have a woman leader - i.e. total bullshit.

Young lesbians are made to feel they're bigots for not wanting to accept dick. This is rape culture FFS.

This is the kind of nonsense that's going on.

Bibijayne you still haven't explained why penis should be allowed in women's changing rooms, prisons and refuges?

@EmpressOfSpartacus I'd disagree with you here. They're separate issues. As a bisexual cis-woman I've never felt that the existence of gender dysphoria erased my experience of same sex attraction.

@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.

I always wonder why the word hate is thrown about so much.

Because it's a mechanism to shut us up.

There are laws against hate speech, if they can get people to think our valid objections are hate speech, they can use the law as a tool to shut us up.

Anyway, here's some proof. Things that women and children had to suffer because the burden is on us to provide the proof by out bodies and privacy being violated:

Target case study

"voyeurism-related offenses increased significantly after the publication of Target’s policy—doubling or tripling according to all measures... The findings are consistent with the “sex-predator” theory which has posited that sexual offenders may use gender-identity policies in private spaces to gain access to women and children in order to perpetrate sexual violence..."

Key Findings:
• Sexual incidents increased across the entire timeframe, with 44 incidents in the four pre-policy trimesters (Jan ’15-Apr ’16), and 80 in the four post-policy trimesters (May ’16-Aug ’17).
• Females were the victims in over ninety-four percent (94.5%) of the incidents, and children the victims in thirty-four percent (34%). All perpetrators were male.
• The three-season forced-category measurement found a 2.3x increase in the amount of upskirt incidents after the policy, and a 2.9x increase in peeping tom incidents after the policy.
• A Poisson regression found the 4-year pre-policy to post-policy rate change to be 3.03 for Upskirt and 3.14 for Peeping Tom, and the 2-year to be 2.16 for Upskirt and 2.34 for Peeping Tom (both using Trimester as a variable).

No attacks you say. Well a quick google found these 'misunderstandings'.

1. A Toronto man claiming to be transgender was arrested and sentenced to jail for sexually assaulting several women in a women’s shelter after he gained access to the shelter and its shower facilitates as "Jessica."

1. Richard Rodriguez, 30, filmed a woman in a bathroom stall at the Potomac Mills Mall, Prince William County Police said,” reported NBC Washington. His victim was a 35-year-old woman who was in a bathroom stall when “she saw a bag moved toward her under the stall divider.” According to police, Rodriguez had been filming her.

1. A Los Angeles man dressed in drag, entered a Macy’s department store bathroom and videotaped women under bathroom stalls.

1. Two male students were caught at the University of Toronto exploiting “gender-neutral” facilities to peep on women in the shower with their cellphone cameras.

I always wonder why the word hate is thrown about so much. Maybe because a lot of women are beginning to hate the debate, hate being marginalised, hate being told they are on the 'wrong side of history' because they are losing their rights to protection based on their sex.
So maybe we are coming over a bit strong, but it is really frustrating to see the transactivists (being male) being listened to and women being told to shut up.

That should say But what proof is there that men who ID AS WOMEN are less prone to sexual violence than men?

in the countries that have already adopted self identification as law there is no evidence that male predators have used it to prey on vulnerable women.
‏
But - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it?
‏
Women KNOW that men can be dangerous. We have to protect ourselves from predatory men EVERY day. Most men have no clue how much this affects us. It's every woman. All of us have all been raped or abused or made to feel uncomfortable by men who don't respect our boundaries.

So, we know men in our spaces ARE a risk. But what proof is there that men who ID are less prone to sexual violence than men? There is none, is there You are asking us to go along with this idea without evidence.
‏
So, here you are, @pallas81 telling us there is no proof Self ID is a risk to women.

But, please can we think about what is meant by "proof" in this context?

If there are no studies being undertaken, then the proof that SelfID is a danger is for enough real women & girls to be hurt that people start paying attention. "Proof" translates to real women & girls being raped, abused, intimated and being the victims of voyeurism.

How many women & girls would need to suffer sexual violence for there to be "proof" that #selfID is a problem?

Especially since the reporting & conviction rates are so very low? (In the UK, only 15% of sexual violence incidents reported and only 5.7% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.

I've got a better idea. Instead of waiting to see if women & girls suffer such "proof" how about we say the risk isn't worth it, until we have proof that transwomen aren't a danger.

Why aren't we asking if it can be proved that Transwomen don't pose the same risk as any man -BEFORE giving them access? Why wouldn't we do this?

‏If we go ahead with Self ID & wait for "proof" of risk, while not finding out if transwomen pose the same risk as any man, we're asking women to be unwitting participants in an experiment where our sexual abuse is the measure.

Can you see why we're not up for this?

The burden of proof should be to prove transwomen don't have male pattern violence, not for the rest of us to put our safety at risk till this social experiment goes wrong. If you expect us to provide proof you're saying you don't give a fuck about the safety of women and children - your belief system is more important.

And speaking of gay rights - the priority of gender over sex is homophobic. It erases the concept of same sex attraction and as a lesbian I find that offensive.

Why can't women just be nice?

It's not house yet though. There's been no comparison to gay rights.

on the wrong side of history

House!

@Moonkissedlegs You can believe that if you want. But I think you'll find you're on the wrong side of comprehensive medical and psychological research. In the end, I think you'll find your views - like those who believed in racial segregation and eugenics - will be on the wrong side of history.

I do wonder why you have so much hate to an already marginalised group. I think you should really take a moment for serious introspection on that and likely seek therapy - because this level of hatred and bigotry is pretty unusual and unhealthy. It's pretty damaging not just to those you seek to persecute, but to yourself and those around you.

No - I think you're confusing gender and sex to suit your purposes. It doesn't help that the English language is somewhat messy and makes semantics different.

I think sex and gender are different things.

Sex is your chromosomal make-up.

Gender is more psychological and can be changed based on gender identity. Gender Dysphoria is a well-researched and recognised medical condition where someone's gender is different to their sex.

Woman is used both for gender and sex. Female tends to be used predominantly for sex (but there has been some interchangability - because English).

If we're going to get in to etymology - man was originally (and in some usages still is) a gender neutral term. You added the prefix to identify gender if necessary (the prefixes were were- to identify men. And wo- or /wyf- to indentify women). There are a number of medieval texts which say things like 'the man was with child' - to refer to pregnancy.

So yes, transwomen are women in definition of gender. In the same way transmen are men. Their sex is a biological term, which is not something which changes. But that doesn't mean they cannot use the pronouns which identify their gender. Him/ Her and she/he are predominantly gender terms taken from the French.

Sex is a biological term. We're talking about gender.

No, we are talking about sex. I don't give a fuck how anyone chooses to 'identify'. Gender is stereotypical bollocks anyway, so if a man wants to don a dress and makeup then he can knock himself out. That does not make him a woman though. And the things we are talking about here, the legalities of segregated spaces, are based on sex.

Which means no penis in the women's refuge.

Sex is a biological term. We're talking about gender.

But gender is either about social constructs & stereotypes, or about some nebulous concept linked to personality. Facebook in the US has about 70 genders. New York recognise around 30.

In principle, I have no problem with the concept of "gender neutral" - I would be all in favour of neutralising gender or indeed eliminating it altogether. At the very least we could have changing rooms etc for people of all genders of the female sex, and people of all genders of the male sex.

Proves that the default number of lower limbs is not two, sorry.

Sex is a biological term. We're talking about gender.

No I’m asking about sex. Forget gender. can humans change sex?

Your friend if they were XXY is Male, NOT Male and female. They probably had kleinfelter syndrome. They are genetically Male.

DSDs and intersex conditions are NOT any kind of proof that humans are not sexually dimorphic any more than a child born with sirenomelia ‘proves’ that the default number of lower limbs is two.

do you believe that humans can change sex?

You’re twisting and prevaricating, just like every other person who I have asked this. If you believe transwomen are women, the answer is yes. If you believe that humans cannot change sex, then the answer is no and transwomen are male.

So - can humans change sex?

Sex is a biological term. We're talking about gender.

However, scientifically there are some rare cases where even sex is confusing. A good friend at university was hemaphrodite. She was brought up a woman and gender-identified as female. But her chromosomes were XXY. She was born with both sets of reproductive organs. As she went through puberty she needed to take additional hormones. Technically her sex is both male and female. Her gender identity is female.

First, several women on here have already explained why we object to "cis".

Second, back in the days when trans meant a small group of people with body dysphoria severe enough to need surgery, women were a lot less bothered. We're now looking at trans as per the Stonewall definition above, which means that women who have objected to sharing communal changing rooms, hospital wards, rape shelters etc with people who are very obviously male-bodied have been expected to put up with it or leave. There's no expectation any longer that "transwomen" do have to pass. Or even that they have to define themselves as anything but "not always male".

Do you appreciate the difference?

But do you believe humans can change sex?

I'm not sure why we don't just have unisex cubicles for toilets and changing rooms. This always made more sense to me.

Yes, I believe in gender ID. Like sexuality I think gender is more complicated than a simple binary system.

I have a question for you all... 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? A lot of these arguments seem to be based on comfort derived of physical appearance.