What would it look like?

Is also like to thank the women on this thread for their excellent contributions.

These threads always go one way, don't they? 🤷

This thread could be a textbook illustration as to why observed male at birth trans identifying feminine people shouldn’t be permitted to enter segregated spaces designed for the safety and privacy of observed female at birth people.

And why arguments to the contrary shouldn’t be entertained.

(Did I manage to be clear without violating any of the new language rules? 😃)

Just caught up on this thread... it all went a bit sideways with the OP after a fairly promising start, but OMG, the outstanding, well-reasoned and thought provoking arguments written with such care and diligence. I have to just say thank you for being totally inspiring women :)

Shame the OP couldn't offer the same in return, even if their views were different. Would have made a nice change!

More people need to see this thread. It should be complusory reading!

The problem is the logical conflict created by clashing a lie with the truth:

Female: a sex?
Female: a gender identity?
Gender identity: a sex?

When carving out a place with a protected characteristic, you create a logical clash when you allow one protected characteristic to overwrite an opposing class.

All the other characteristics intersect and overlay. You can be a black woman, or a pregnant woman, or a Muslim man, or a Hindu Gay man. You can take on extra characteristics.

But gender identity seeks to overwrite sex. It uses sex terms.
It's not possible to be a male (sexed) female (gender identity). They conflict. So gender identity has been constructed to overwrite and BECOME 'sex'. You can't preserve a characteristic and overwrite it too.

There is no way to make gender identity and sex coexist. They will clash until either the truth (sex), or the lie (gender identity) supercedes the other.

PosyFossilsShoes, yes that makes sense to me. It is not for females who have the protected characteristic of female sex to include males who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

Just a race doesn't stop sex being a protected characteristic, neither does gender reassignment.

And that is where genderists believe that "cis" is a dominant class which should not be permitted to exclude "trans." And to an extent they are right in that trans people are not a politically dominant class. However, where they go wrong is in looking for the comparator class. The correct comparator class is in sex: so males who do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment shouldn't be permitted to exclude males who do have that protected characteristic, unless there is a legitimate aim.

It is not for females who have the protected characteristic of female sex to include males who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (or race, or religion, or anything else) - the logical extension of that is that women's space is for anybody who has a protected characteristic at all.

Thanks posy I've been thinking about that. Its about the direction of power. The dominant class (men) shouldn't be able to exclude women from places where they make political decision and business deals in such a way that enables them to hoard power indefinitely.

I also thought about Jess Philips saying that people shouldn't be allowed online anonymity. Well men that harass, abuse and threaten women shouldn't be allowed, but the women who are hiding from stalkers, get harassed by proxy by the police, etc, should definitely be allowed anonymity. Twitter can't be trusted with their contact details (neither can mn since Emmagate made it painfully clear). It's not one size fits all.

It must be accepted that it is always legitimate, as long as women have less wealth, power and representation, for women to have women only space for whatever reason. Same with other groups. It's the 'men only', 'white only', 'able-bodied only', 'heterosexual only' spaces that need to justify a legitimate reason to exist. Less social power is legitimacy enough for any exclusive group.

@Baroquehavoc and @PermissionToSpeakSir - the provision wasn't initially there to make women justify their need for separate space but to make men do so - to permit for example a men's mental health group, but not an old-boys' club which acted as a bar to women accessing public life.

What does legitimate aim mean?

Exactly.

The reason for single sex provision is already argued for and understood. It is ridiculous to have to keep arguing every five minutes for what is already justified, just because some people don't respect other people's boundaries because they have a fetish or a mental illness.

Birth certs should be M F and stay that way for ever in all records (unless the wrong call was made on a baby with ambiguous genitals).

There is no need to 'change gender' on documents, but society needs to adapt to the fact that some men prefer skirts, make up, long hair, etc for a number of reasons (whether dysphoria, AGP, personal style) and some women prefer trousers, short hair, practical clothes and detest being sexually objectified.

No need to change bank details, passport or anything.

However, when it came to same-sex provision, where there is a legitimate aim for it

What does legitimate aim mean? Why would women campaign and set up spaces for women for unjustified reasons? Who is going to decide if a women only space or event is legitimate?

Do women and need spaces that are segregated by gender?

I'm not having a go at you,it's just that there is often a suggestion that many women and girls spaces are there for frivolous reasons and wanting to be in female only spaces is wrong.

I enjoyed the first ew pages of people sharing their thinking and wondered if we could just carry on?

I have been mulling over a few options:
Sex is observed at birth - a delayed registration of the birth being allowed where it takes more than 42 days to determine (status quo). This recorded sex is their sex for life.
At 18, people can register their gender. Where someone's gender identity is tied up with sex, they could be register this as 'female (g)' or 'male (g)'.
They could also be woman (g) and man (g).
For day to day purposes of what they call themselves and how they go about their daily lives, the (g) would be insignificant and they would not have to refer to it. However, when it came to same-sex provision, where there is a legitimate aim for it, it could be made clear that is was for males/females only.

Thank you so much both of you

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.
2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.
5th rule of misogyny: Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
6th rule of misogyny: Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breast feeding babies deserve punishment.
7th rule of misogyny: Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.
10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
11th rule of misogyny: Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.
12th rule of misogyny: Women's ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.
13th rule of misogyny: Women are not oppressed! Rape and catcalling and objectification are all compliments, not oppression.
14th rule of misogyny: Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

You will find the memes that go with them at the wordpress trollbuster website.

Here you go

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/6kkeni/theerulesoffmisogyny/

I've got a browser tab open with them as they seem to be applied so frequently nowadays.

Ah thank you bewilderness, that does make sense! What a shame. I will have to google the rest of the rules of misogyny too

Yep - TIMs don't want to have sex with other TIMs and straight men don't want to have sex with TIMs either. And that's fine. No one has the right to decide who you're sexually attracted to. Unless you're a lesbian. And then you're a horrible transphobe.

In Miss Marple mode, I deduce that the difference between the first two groups and the second one is that the first are made up of men and the second is women. Coincidence? I think not

And let's not forget that the lefty dude bros are adamant that, while they view TW as women, they don't want to fuck them.

The recent survey that revealed that transgender identified males do not want to have sexual relations with other transgender identified males was a real eye opener regarding this whole "view as a woman" question.
"Transwomen are women" is a belief that virtually no one believes while at the same time transgender identified males insist that refusing to believe is transphobic.

I thought this was going to be a good thread - the OP was an interesting question.

Oh well.

And let's not forget that the lefty dude bros are adamant that, while they view TW as women, they don't want to fuck them. That's fine though. It's just women not wanting them in our prisons, hospital wards and changing rooms that are massive bigots.

As well as those who claim that woman has nothing to do with female, I think many are now denying sex exists in a meaningful way. For example TIM with breast implants are the same as a women who have had hysterectomies; a boy who hasn't been through puberty is the same as a girl going through puberty.

So many talk about advanced biology and sex as a spectrum, claiming that we have so much to learn. Therefore rather than claim we can change sex, I see people arguing that we don't understand sex.

Increasingly, I'm seeing people argue that because we don't understand so much of biology, we cannot accurately predict someone's sex, therefore it's less relevant than gender. We can trust someone's inner feelings more than complicated biology.

I am open minded though, as an experiment I'm going identify as a non women to avoid the menopause. Wish me luck.

I should actually clarify that I mean TRAs, not transwomen In general - the posters on here who are transitioned transwomen lean more towards acknowledging they are male but wish to have a female body/suffer from gender dysphoria. That’s a position I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Most transwomen seem to believe b)

They require everyone else to belive it. But I’ve asked rather a lot of people on here ‘can humans change sex?’ And nobody, ever, has said a simple yes. I’ve had an awful lot of flannel about gender and feelings and mithering about souls, but no one has nailed their colours to the mast and said they think human beings can change sex.

So I have ask myself, if they don’t believe it either, why do they insist everyone else builds their world around it?

And I can only answer along narcissistic control lines

YY ETD!

Some TRAs (I don't mean the OP) seem to believe:
C) TW != M && TW > W ( && M > W, obv)