Q&A thread for New Posters

merrymouse
"We weren't accepted into university."
And I don't think this is a relic from 100 years ago. I'm happy to be corrected but I think that until the mid 1970's most Oxbridge colleges were single sex, and the vast majority were men only.

I think it may be important to remember that the vast majority of males were equally unaccepted by universities before WWII. Fewer than 5% of the population went to university in the 1930s, which obviously meant most men didn't.

On the other hand my grandmother was accepted into the University of Edinburgh before 1900, and my mother took not one but two degrees (Oxford and Edinburgh) in the 1930s before starting war-work on graduation. (Just in time to be working in a factory in Coventry when it was bombed: bad call there Mum.)

For a long time all universities had curfews in the halls of residence after which a member of the other sex was not allowed in your room. If the domestic staff found anyone sleeping on your floor at eg Lancaster there was trouble. In the late sixties Oxford colleges not only had curfews, they locked their students in overnight, just as they had in the thirties. (In theory: climbing the walls and getting in and out through second-floor windows was a sport, just as it always had been.) Student pregnancies were deemed to be a Bad Idea, in those years before the Pill was available to all.

Here is a useless factoid: Kent University was built on the boundary between Canterbury City and Kent County authorities, and one offered free birth control while the other did not. The boundary ran smack dab down a corridor in one of the halls of residence, and women on one side of that corridor swapped rooms with men on the other side so that they would be living in the authority which provided free birth control. All very Puckoon, except not really funny at all in the days when an unwanted child rather finished your chance of a degree.

I think JY has very publicly demolished “true-trans” gatekeeping. I’ve started a new thread on the latest antics and disgusting behaviour:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4167243-For-all-those-who-are-happy-with-TW-in-single-sex-spaces-if-they-have-had-the-op

Control.

Even on this is very thread. At this current moment in time (I'm predicting it will all change soon) women being able to ask and respond, without the narrative being twisted to suit the opposite sex, it's refreshing by its rarity.

Just to head back to the toilets topic for a moment...these threads always attract a certain amount of whatabouttery surrounding toilets. But what about post-op TW? But how do you know what someone has in their pants? But male-born people have been ‘passing’ and using the Ladies for years, why is it a problem now? But toilets don’t have security anyway, how do you propose to stop anyone using them? But but but.

You don’t have to work out answers to any of these questions because the very asking of them tells you one fundamental thing about the questioner: they don’t respect women, they don’t respect women’s rights and they certainly don’t respect women’s boundaries. They’re not interested in answers to the questions; they’re just demonstrating women’s powerlessness in the face of people who will ride roughshod over women’s safety, privacy and dignity.

When the person asking the questions is female, I feel sorry for them that they’ve internalised so much misogyny and social conditioning that says women need to be support humans and solve everyone else’s problems before their own. When they’re male...well, there’s a word for men who force themselves (and their penises) past women’s boundaries even when the women are saying “no”...

They don’t matter because they are religious bigots, according to the woke mindset.

But note, different rules apply for men...

Seriously, none of this makes sense. It is an illogical pseudo-reality that they inhabit, full of contradictions that do not bear close inspection.

This woman’s mannerisms irritate me but this is a shortcut to some of the issues with woke ideology:

Thanks @MoleSmokes that was what I thought she meant based on what Google told me. But she's usually so lovely, and totally un racist that I thought I'd misunderstood. :(

So how do trans-activists who claim black women suffer more square that with the Muslim women (some of whom will also be black) who aren't allowed to use mixed sex spaces/can't remove their hijab if they need to due to men being there? Or do Muslim women not matter now?

You can't legislate for personality that would be dangerous and unworkable.

Although there does seem to be a wide spread belief that the government does record gender identity and that people have a right to have their gender identity recognised. It's not clear why.

We weren't accepted into university.

And I don't think this is a relic from 100 years ago. I'm happy to be corrected but I think that until the mid 1970's most Oxbridge colleges were single sex, and the vast majority were men only.

Like it or not, an Oxbridge education is still a route to power, and just in government, the men who benefited from this are still MPs and still sitting in the House of Lords.

It tells you everything you need to know about the mindset of “woke women” that they are not ashamed to spout this racist shit. Presumably, by virtue of reading racist bullshit like “White Fragility”, they have acquired a special superpower that enables them to distinguish between black women and black men.

It’s very sad that your friend has been brainwashed in this way. Take care not to try to accept this nonsense out of solidarity with her - it is pure brain rot and ultimately psychopathic.

I think it helped me to know that their is a difference between gender and gender identity. This is used by academics in presentations I've seen:
Sex is biology
Gender is social
Gender identity is psychological

Today it seems a lot of people are talking about gender identity, that is their personality. You can't legislate for personality that would be dangerous and unworkable.

Cracking explanation, Datun.

I am feeling particularly ball breaking this morning due to stuff, so that’s really speaking to me right now.

This is true! I already feel a bit angry!

Get used to ranting!!

Datun
Thank you, that is a really powerful statement.
The roles comes from without, not within
This bit particularly spoke to me.

And thank you to everyone else. Its been a real eye-opener.

Yes, it can be viewed as masculinity and femininity, but if you limit it to things like hair, dress, mannerisms, etc, you're not seeing the full picture and might be missing the implications.

The way gender was explained to me was a bit of an eye-opener.

It was quite simply that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Due to things like inheritance, men wanted to control women's fertility, pregnancy and offspring. And of course, their sexual availability to only one man to ensure the lineage.

So women needed to be controlled (oppressed) on the basis of their sex.

And that's where gender steps in. Because you have to find the means to do it.

So women are too uneducated to vote, too unintelligent to be educated, they need to stay in the home, not get involved in business, cant be independent and own their own property, can't have a bank account. And they need to be sexually available to the man who owns them.

And of course, this is all true. Rape within marriage was legal. We couldn't own property or get a mortgage. We weren't accepted into university. And our abuse at the hands of men was not recognised.

I'm not sure exactly how far we've come, to be honest!

But that's the way it was explained to me.

And although some gender roles might seem positive, they still appear to serve a purpose. So women are 'nurturing and caring'. Which just means they are going to put men and everyone else, ahead of themselves. It still keeps them down.

Hence the absolute explosion of rage when women don't conform to this. Strong, articulate women in business, get called mouthy or a ball breaker. Women who don't nurture or care are called unnatural.

Whore, tart, etc, for women who have lots of sexual partners. Of course, no such slur for promiscuous men, because it doesn't serve the purpose).

So when people say sex role stereotypes, that's exactly what it means. The stereotypical roles that are imposed on women. And of course, men have some too. That probably accounts for a lot of the homosexual transsexuals, who weren't too keen on conforming to strong masculinity or toxic male sex roles.

So feminists want to abolish gender. Because it's a patriarchal tool of control.

And hence why I don't believe in a gender identity, because the roles comes from without, not within.

Anyone who does, to my mind, is cementing gender roles as innate.

That's how it was explained to me. And as a framework, so far, it's been infallible. It fits every scenario I can think of.

Gender identity as some kind of inner neurological, or religious feeling that you're the opposite sex, is, to me, a made up term to explain why some men don't want to be men. (Or women, women)

I find gender interesting and perhaps sometimes a useful concept

What categories would you include though? Gender, unlike sex, is socially constructed and aside from 'masculine' and 'feminine' everything else seems totally concocted. I mean imagine a form with agender, bigender, unicorn gender, genderfree, genderflux and so on. These are totally made-up, have no clear and agreed on meaning and no social history or location linking them to anything real.

TinyCake

When a form asks for gender male/female, it is obvious that what they really want to know is your sex.

But then you get things like gender man/woman or I had boy/girl on a child's form.

A question for sex and a separate question for gender identity which included an option of 'none' or 'I don't believe in gender ideology' (perhaps too wordy!) or a free text box would be fine for me rather than man/woman/prefer not to say. It's not that I'd prefer not to say, which sounds a bit coy, it's that I don't believe in the ideology.

It seems a bit mad to me for some of the trans population to complain that not enough is done for them and there aren't enough resources put aside etc, when at the same time they don't want to reveal that they are trans as it is too outing! It's impossible to have it both ways and I welcome the collection of accurate data on the trans population of this country in order to plan resources

Sex is a useful data point. It has big implications for medical treatments, blood values and the presentation of various illnesses. It is also relevant for age predictions and crime rates. I know that some people argue that a man who identifies as a woman suddenly has a different propensity to commit crimes, but this is not proven. don’t think any gender variance in crime rates ever will be be proven as that argument relies on “the right kind of trans woman” and an internal feeling. None of those concepts are ever defined.

I don’t really see the use of a gender measure and I find it awful if people feel that they need to put themselves in a box. Possible the difficulty with that gender box is what let you the 100 genders or 130 genders whatever those are. Notably, they are likely to mean different things to different people, so the concept is altogether useless.

However, as long as there is a sex box and if it makes some people feel validated and there is an option “I don’t believe in gender”, why not?

I find gender interesting and perhaps sometimes a useful concept- I don't think it is solely harmful. But I may be in the minority here. Either way, it should be utterly clear that it is a completely different word with a completely different meaning to 'sex', which in almost every case is clear and straightforward. When govts are looking for data that is actually useful then I would imagine 9 times out of 10 they are going to need to know 'sex', not 'gender'.

I see, so it is the whole idea of Gender that people are critical of. That makes sense. When I read the link posted earlier I was thinking but gender is just what society says is femininity and masculinity so it makes sense to me that people can identify anywhere on a spectrum or want to step outside being defined in that way at all.

I really hope I don't offend with this. Would a gender critical feminist be more comfortable if official forms had fields for sex AND gender? Or is it the very idea of gender that they are critical of?

I'd be uncomfortable. I prefer sex (male and female). For me, gender is my oppression - I don't identify as feminine - it was how I was socialised. An 'other' box might suffice with a write-in option.

Having said that, in some instances I think it is important that the information captures one's 'sex as born as'. This might include forms where the sex that a person was raised as is relevant (such as for statistical information) and some forms used for medical purposes.

Personally, I am happy with a separate sex question and a separate gender identity question. I'd just put not applicable the way I do to "what is your religion?"

@Delphinium20 couldn't they just leave it blank and leave a "none" option?