An inclusive way to be gender critical?

The only negative I see is that the language and threats the TRAs are using are increasingly peaking more and more people. I do think the discussions are good to have to really display the worst inconsistencies for what they are.

I understand that people want to vent but the inconsistencies are so obvious is there really need to keep discussing them?

But then I am not much of a venter, especially in recent years. In real life just tend towards quietly acting without the venting and moving on. People don't tend to notice my part in things only the results.

You're getting confusion and frustration, because you are writing as if you've come up with something new.

So, I'm being confusing because I'm expressing a widely heard and well understood opinion?

I'm bowing out now, because you seem to be determined to find an argument where there is none.

So you agree! Great!

And we need more people to think it and then they will say it too.

Which means, if you were to agree with my premise, no one would have any problem in saying their gender matched their sex. No matter what they wear, how they did their hair, their interests, their working roles, their personality, likes and dislikes or anything.

If they disliked their body, for whatever reason, it would be treated as a separate issue.

And I feel my views on redefining gender (in the way it is assumed by society to be connected to someone's sex) and making it as broad as anything can possibly be, means that eventually there will cease to be any need from any sector for the term.

I think you are preaching to the converted here

Then why the hostility?

Your suggestion is to work with Joe Public to encourage acceptance of gender non-conforming people more, in general?

Yes, whilst preserving single sex provision.

What you are suggesting, now I've worked it out, is exactly what most moderate people want.

I think so too.

But they are shut down with accusations of bigotry, and worse, because the TRAs want no debate.

From this thread, it would seem neither do more radical GC feminist, sadly. However, I'm hoping to appeal to the moderate majority.

Are you saying that people use, for example, clothing, to send out a signal regarding how they wish to be treated?

Not really. Some might. Clothing choices are made for many reasons.

So you would like men to be accepted as tranwomen in men's spaces, just as women presenting as men (gendered male clothing, testosterone induced facial hair etc) in the ladies

Yes.

And if a transwoman is dressed in 'girly' clothes, that would be taken as a signal that they want to be spoken to as a 'girly girl'?

Possibly, but I wouldn't make any assumptions. They might just like the clothes or be dressing ironically.

But you are woefully mistaken if you think that will satisfy the trans lobby, or if you think that a desire to be free from male violence is the sole or even main reason transwomen want access to women-only spaces. If a transwoman genuinely believes they are a real woman, it is patently obvious that they would want to use facilities designated for women. And that isn't even taking into account the potential for men to pretend to identify as women in order to gain access to women's spaces. Somehow I don't think they'd be very interested in your 'solution' either.

I'm not looking at engaging with the trans lobby, more the vast swathes of ordinary, moderate people who are responsible for education and services in this country along with the education and service users plus the younger generation of people who are our future.

Be kind, don't rock the boat.

More like be kind whilst steering the boat!Whilst some people get caught up squabbling more pragmatic, moderate people quietly get on with some very subtle redirecting...

And legal, polite, firm debate reframed as 'outright combat.'

Legal, yes. Polite, no. 'Outright combat', not what I said. My word was 'conflict'. Again, I think some appreciation of nuance is needed. The meaning is different.

This thread feels like what would happen if you tried to convince a group of 19th century early feminists that they shouldn't be fighting against the middle-class cult of domesticity, they should be redefining 'domesticity' to include everything they wanted to be able to do, so as not to offend the men who thought the ideal of feminine domesticity was culturally important.

I would have some sympathy for them. My motivations are not so as not to offend men, though. My stance is chosen in order to be fair to men and women who don't have the stomach to make changes through outright conflict, who appreciate that everyone who doesn't parrot their views exactly is not necessarily their mortal enemy.

The fact that I suggested you start your own thread to stop derailing another

I didn't feel like I was derailing it since some GC posters have, including on this thread, considered my stance gender critical.

I am still with everyone else who has found your position confused, inconsistent and yes, naïve, which is understandable because you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven’t actually fully understood what the issues are that we are facing, and seem to think if we were all just nicer then we might get a better response from those who have a completely different worldview and purpose/goal than us.

So anyone who agrees with a lot of your particular brand of gender critical stance but only partially agrees with the whole of it is confused, then? I'm sorry but the definition of confused is not disagreeing slightly with you.

One would think having a more moderate nuanced approach was the most rebellious thing ever amongst the posters on this thread...