An inclusive way to be gender critical?

There's a reason there are more male sex offenders than women, and it's not actually anything to do with their gender).

Gender has nothing to do with it as transwomen and non binary male born people are just as likely to be sexual offenders as any other males

much as women are refusing to have transwomen in, the reason it will never happen is because there is jack shit way to police it.
Other than asking transwomen to stay out and respect them, which I'm sure they will be jumping to do given the respectful voice of many feminists on here towards trans

You've got a really low opinion of transwomen.

Transmen being female are not the threat males are to females

So because males have the potential to rape and women don't, transmen are okay but transwomen aren't.

That is what it comes down to.

(There's a reason there are more male sex offenders than women, and it's not actually anything to do with their gender).

As much as women are refusing to have transwomen in, the reason it will never happen is because there is jack shit way to police it.
Other than asking transwomen to stay out and respect them, which I'm sure they will be jumping to do given the respectful voice of many feminists on here towards trans...

99.9% of all sexual offences and almost 86% of all violent crimes committed by members of male sex . Transwomen and men share the same patterns of criminality. So pretty obvious women must be vulnerable to the male sex. As to why I think that is just blatantly obvious

I see we are back at the discussion about what is the definition of the word 'woman'. As usual the argument are that female humans should have a word that is only for them and not for any male, so they can effectively fight sexism and keep existing rights based on the fact they are female and not male, versus anyone can be a woman therefore female humans have no word to define themselves, fight sexism and keep existing rights based on the fsct they are female and not male.

Well, makes a change from 'you have always shared toilets with transwomen and never noticed' argument...

334bu said as a feminist she is also concerned for women transitioning to men.

But I can only presume that concern doesn't stretch to men.

Wait, what?

What I'm getting at is, accepting women as men but not men as women is a slippery slope.

Who is imagined to be doing this?

And if your theory is biologically that men are stronger etc, would you allow a transitioned transman?

??????

[quote DadJoke]@NotDavidTennant
The third paragraph in, the authors state "Every person has a gender identity", but provide no citation or supporting evidence.

Can you cite any evidence that all people (or even most people) have a gender identity?

Their are multiple cites in the paper. Follow them. It's like asking for cites for the statement "every person has a sexuality." You really don't need me to do that work for you.[/quote]
I've had a look at the paper you posted a link to.

It doesn't give any evidence that everyone has a gender identity as far as I can see. The first paper referenced is by Stoller, from 1968. I can't find a full text version of this, but I would hope that any real evidence that everyone has a gender identity (if true) would also be found in more recent papers.

The next reference is to the 'Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people.' from the American Psychological Association. There is no evidence there that everyone has a gender identity and only a fairly woolly definition of what it is.

The next citation is in a section headed 'Gender Identity': Every person has a gender identity. Children typically become aware of gender between the ages of three and five (Ruble et al. 2007).

This is the paper: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17650129/

There's a link to the full text on google scholar

It's clear that the authors aren't actually talking about 'gender identity' as an identity which has nothing to do with one's sex, it's talking about 'sex identity', in other words, the understanding a child has that they are male or female, and that this is a fixed attribute (my bold).

One of the most compelling yet controversial ideas in the gender literature is ‘‘gender constancy.’’ As proposed by Kohlberg (1966), children’s developing understanding of the permanence of categorical sex (‘‘I am a girl and will always be a girl’’) is a critical organizer and motivator for learning gender concepts and behaviors. Slaby and Frey (1975) demonstrated that children move through a series of stages: first learning to identify their own and others’ sex (basic gender identity or labeling), next learning that gender remains stable over time (stability), and finally learning that gender is a fixed characteristic that is not altered by superficial transformations in appearance or activities (consistency). Thus, children are thought to reach a full understanding of constancy once they recognize that they will always be the same sex, across time or change in situation (e.g., a boy who puts on a dress and a long-haired wig is still a boy even though he resembles a girl). These stages have been confirmed in other research, including cross-cultural studies (e.g., De Lisi & Gallagher, 1991).

This is from an article by Katie Alcock (child development specialist) about how the language has changed over time:

What this also means is that terminology has changed. When this area of research first started, everyone knew, and was clear, that they were talking about children’s knowledge of biological sex. The terms “sex identity” and “sex constancy” were used, to mean children’s knowledge of whether they were a boy or a girl, and whether they or others could change into the opposite sex. Around the 1990s everyone started getting squeamish about the word “sex” and started using “gender” as a euphemism. Researchers, however, still meant a child’s knowledge of biological sex.

That paper doesn't seem to contain any evidence for what you are claiming.

What I'm getting at is, accepting women as men but not men as women is a slippery slope.

If we accepted men as women but not women as men the misogny cries would be out ASAP.

And if your theory is biologically that men are stronger etc, would you allow a transitioned transman?

Because they are members of the female sex class even if they identify their gender as men .

What about other people's daughters who are transgender?

Of course feminists are concerned about anybody's daughter even if they are transgender and identify as men
They will still face the same discrimination as any other female sexed person

What about other people's daughters who are transgender?

When you start claiming to only care about biologically born females, feminism is looking a bit shaky

And what have I said that means I can't be a feminist?

I'm on two similar threads (and have clearly lost the inability to read and write posts).

My point still stands though. It's not about making an argument to sway you. My only issue is about the ferocity of anti trans.

And no, I haven't got a problem, other than with 🙄 at your 4? At last count posts basically saying IM RIGHT NA NA NA.

Convince you? What do you think this is? You're in some authority and it's my job to plead to you?

Well, I haven't said that 'I'm right'. I've said that you haven't convinced me that you have a position of merit. If you do, you should be able to argue it - & you can't, or you haven't.

You're asking me to set aside established rights & you are being asked to come up with a good reason as to why I should acquiesce to that. You haven't yet found an argument that's coherent.

What I'm saying is: come back to me with an argument. Prove me wrong.

I'll wait.

Indeed. So do I. I call myself a feminist because the rights of women and girls are a primary concern for me, not because it's a nice label I can use.

Do you need to be a woman to be a feminist? Do feminists only care about women

Feminism centres women. It is about women. But as human beings, of course, it is possible and usual to care about other things too.