Young women don't know what a woman is

young women are open to rejecting historical gender roles.
I actually think this is an important point, although probably not in the way the poster intended. From what I've seen and heard, young people genuinely do believe they're rejecting gender roles. Now I think they're doing the exact opposite and other posters have very eloquently argued why. But the thinking is entrenched and I've no doubt they say the same about our arguments.

I honestly don't know where we go from here.

It is appropriate to help people, especially children, come to understand that often there's no 'magic' cure and we have to accept ourselves and the limitations that arise from our bodies and minds.

It's appropriate if that is what the individual wants. I don't want to accept my body as it is and neither, nor anyone else, is going to make me accept it. I will keep on trying to change it and seek treatments that can help me to change it. I don't have to accept anything because you want me to.

"The male race" has always been my favorite disgruntled blokeism.

@NekoShiro

You've got it the wrong way round. And that might well be because, at face value, it can look like busting gender boxes.

But that's because when you see a transwoman, you're actually seeing a man dressed in a feminine way, and your first instinct is to see gender nonconformity. But only because you know he's a man.

The damaging and ideological part comes right at the very end, when he says dressing in a feminine way, and claiming he thinks and feels like a woman is not because he's a gender nonconforming man it's because he is a woman. Because that's the way women, and only women, think. It's reinforcing the boxes, not dismantling them.

This is why it is regressive and damaging, largely to women. It's not progressive.

We're going backwards.

It's a shame a lot of younger women these days seem to take so much for granted. It's really only a short time ago when women were not given access to higher education for instance, or it was simply not considered necessary, because they would end up getting married and having babies, so what's the point. Rape within marriage was completely legal in the early 1990s. A landlord could quite legitimately refuse to serve a woman, purely on the basis that she was female, up until the early 1980s.

I realise that to some young women, this seems such a long time ago. But many of the men who heartily approved of these laws still work in environments where they are made.

It's bad enough seeing men clamouring to roll back women's rights. But at least it's familiar sexism and misogyny.

But it's incredibly frustrating seeing women doing it, too, out of a sense of ignorance.

APocketFullOfButtons

That isn't necessarily true. A condition, either mental or physical, doesn't necessarily mean a disability, criteria have to be met for it to be classed as such. Part of it is also down to how the individual feels too. You can't just label someone as disabled if they choose not to accept it.

And the original poster was talking about physical disabilities, hence their comments about bodies not working properly, whatever that means!

Surgery and medical devices can only help some disabilities, usually imperfectly. There are many issues that can never be corrected. It is appropriate to help people, especially children, come to understand that often there's no 'magic' cure and we have to accept ourselves and the limitations that arise from our bodies and minds. We can learn to live (and thrive) with the one body we have.

Advocates of transgenderism grasp this, but insist on going around in circles and using disabilities as a way to prop up their arguments for why people, especially children, should be allowed to have all sorts of medical and surgical interventions carried out on them.

Would disabled people find it offensive if someone claimed to have an 'amputee' identity and demanded access to all sorts of treatments and services that are usually difficult even for genuinely disabled people to obtain?

Hooves, if you don't want people to bring up disabilities at all, why were you highlighting them earlier?

Because I was disagreeing with the poster who originally decided to bring people with disabilities into the argument. I'm allowed to find that offensive and to challenge it.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Mental health issues are a form of disability

I don't think any of these drugged and mutilated children will make it to being elderly tbh.
The odds are stacked against them in terms of all the physical side effects, not to mention the mental health problems.

Hooves, if you don't want people to bring up disabilities at all, why were you highlighting them earlier?

It’s all they’ve got. Trying to make an argument out of something so ridiculous. It’s like arguing with a small child why they can’t have Jelly for breakfast

But it’s nice
It’s got fruit on it
It’s got water in it
It’s just like having a bowl of strawberries
It i waaaaaaant it
If I get it o won’t even ask for anything ever again

The person conflating those issues was the one who chose to state that children with disabilities are counselled to accept their bodies and the issues they present, rather than given surgery to alter them the inference being that anyone who identifies as trans gender should do the same.

Why bring people with disabilities into this argument at all? We aren't some kind of prop to shore up your arguments.

So who said he had the right to choose who was ‘worthy’ and who wasn’t?

By his reasoning if a perfectly healthy person said they wanted to be killed then he ought to do it (or not if they would commit suicide anyway) rather that get them psychological help.

A snippet from the link I posted.

20 years ago I was called in to help on a Horizon that was the strangest I've ever worked on. I flew out to Germany to interview a man who wanted to have a perfectly healthy leg removed. The man believed his inner innate identity was as an amputee.

His psychiatrist was an erstwhile student of Money, Russell Reid. Like Money he'd long been fascinated by people who were sexually aroused by the idea of being amputees (amnepotophiles) but by the 90s he began to argue this wasn't a fetish. It was their core inner identity.

He compared this to 'gender identity'. Reid was at the time the UK's biggest expert in transsexual care & provided influential expert testimony during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act (2004). Reid argued doctors should always affirm transsexuals' gender identities.
Otherwise he said they would commit suicide. He now took the same approach on 'Amputee Identity', referring the German & another patient to a surgeon to remove their chosen limbs. Reid's argument was if medics did not make their bodies fit their inner identity...
..they too would commit suicide. It's true a few people did try to self-amputate and some others threatened suicide. But even Reid drew the line at a woman who said she was always meant to be quadriplegic.

It's disingenuous to conflate corrective surgery and medical devices that enable disabled people to live better lives with medical and surgical procedures carried out on people with healthy bodies and organs in the name of transgenderism.

As OldCrone explains, the correct analogy is people with healthy bodies who have a strong desire to amputate themselves so as to better align with their 'disabled identity'. Should we be celebrating and encouraging people with such ideas? Funding medical centres that cater to their desires?

This link describes the historical link between the disabled / amputee identity phenomenon and transgenderism.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224766770805866499.html

Thank god when i was a teen the worst toy generally did was get a dodgy haircut or buy some god awful clothes.

I think that in 50 years when those girls are elderly adults

...they’ll be like this 🤦‍♀️ going “what the hell was I thinking?”

So my sister - has had the same buzz cut for as long as I can remember and generally wears ‘men’s’ clothes.

Sorry kiddies, but she has been doing this oh so modern and edgy activity since the mid 80s. You haven’t invented anything.

If men want to wears women's clothes and make up, and women want to cut there hair a be masculine - then brilliant. I'm all for that, I think it was called the 80s.

The problem with the approach today is its about not accepting people for being different. It's about pushing people into boxes. If a girl is masculine, we don't accept her. We tell her she's a boy and must have her breasts removed and take hormones to aline her body with her mind.

If a boy wants to be flamboyant, we tell him he is therefore not a boy and is actually a girl.

Thats not acceptance. It's the opposite.

young women are open to rejecting historical gender roles

You've misunderstood - genderism is about reinforcing gender roles not rejecting them.

I think that in 50 years when those girls are elderly adults, their kids and grandkids are going to be a lot more open, accepting and loving towards people who are different, maybe in 100 years it won't be classified as being different anymore.

Yes, I can't wait for men to finally start accepting transgender males as men without deeming them so unmanly they must be women (women being merely people-who-are-not-men). I also hope that in 100 years these males won't be classified as being different anymore.

Gaslighting more like

And the second time someone's appeared on this thread to scold everyone for not respecting other people's opinions and being 'loving' to those who are different -

while not respecting their opinions, and definitely not being loving about their differences.

Hypocrisy on crack.

In 50 years when those girls are elderly adults, their kids and grandkids are going to be a lot more open, accepting and loving towards people who are different,

No one has the faintest problem being open, accepting and loving towards people who are different. It's when being 'open accepting and loving' is twisted to mean 'surrender your rights, spaces, language and privacy' and 'I'll report you to the police unless you lie' that people start going - hang on, how is this 'loving'? Why is this 'accepting' and 'loving' not reciprocal?

Because when it's 'do what I say or else, even when it negatively affects you' that isn't love, it's abuse.

maybe in 100 years ...we'll look back at this like slavery

Are you fucking kidding me?

Have you the faintest idea of how insensitive that is and how ignorant it makes you look? You clearly haven't the first clue about what slavery was, or who it affected, or what actually happened, or that it involved real people with real problems. No, being sold, branded, beaten, forcibly raped for breeding, having your children sold away, treated as animal labour..... is not the fucking same as saying to someone your biology does not change no matter how much you wish it would, and I won't pretend about that.

human beings have a right to live their life how they choose to live it, not how someone else forces them to even if that someone else is the current ideas of society.

My point exactly. Female people have a right to live their life how they choose without being forced to pretend that some kind of alchemy changes males into females, forced to surrender their language, spaces, right to homosexuality, right to meet and define as a group, and to be allowed to retain privacy from people born male, even if that is the current idea of society. Live and let live. Female people did not start this.

people are sat here bickering over issues that might not even effect them personally

of course it affects us personally if you change the meaning of woman, eliminate all single sex spaces and pretend that being a woman is a choice.

young women are open to rejecting historical gender roles

theyre not rejecting them at all- they are enforcing them. they are the ones saying being female is a 'role' rather than a biological fact.