Does anyone ever have a "are we the baddies"* moment?

Menstrual - that's brilliant. I'm so pleased. It is hard to move away from automatically agreeing with the ostensibly "progressive" stance (even though it's absolutely not). Little by little.

Here’s why I don’t worry if I am a baddie. It’s a Guardian article about women dying because of maternity care in the pandemic. It’s about Nepal, so the Guardian is able to call pregnant women ‘women’ in this context without apologetic references to diverse gender identities. Apparently, poor foreign women don’t have gender identities whereas all uterus-bearers in the UK have preferred pronouns.
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/15/nepal-sees-huge-rise-in-maternal-deaths-as-covid-keeps-women-at-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Nothing you described makes you the "baddie" in any way.

Marion Millar case has been delayed

No, never, but I can understand those GC that occasionally do.

More so I would be less amazed if the uber woke don't.

An example of the big difference between the two sides of this argument would be if Gender Critical activists were hunting down transactivists online to ruin their lives in any way they could, including destroying their careers and cheering if they lose their homes, even when they have kids as I have seen the lefts mob do on plenty of occasions.
If they don't lie in the wee small hours in bed and occasionally think "Was I right to do that" then they must be genuinely evil.

[quote Keepemguessing]some of the snide mockery of people who are fluid about gender (eg Pip) shocks me

I see Pips Bunce as mocking womanhood.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html[/quote]
I also see Pips Bunce as mocking womenhood, wmen and also, taking the piss.

Look at his Linkedin profile shot:

a) man one, nice professional head shot
b) woman one - full body shot, including short skirt and fishnets - because being a woman at work, is all about body, sex, clothes and shoes right?
c) even though this is clearly inappropriate it's ok for him to put his (irrelevant to his job) fetish on show in front of colleagues, even though most of them range from disinterested to offended
d) if I did either of b) or c), as an actual woman, I would have my career limited and ultimately be managed out - not to mention have everyone bitching and talking about me behind my back.
e) if I dressed like that and used it as my linked in profile I would not get interviews and would get even more creepy messages from random men.

Piss. take.

I believe gender is a social construct and sex is the source of female oppression so I am GC but I wish we could make it clearer that we are fighting for women's safety not against trans rights.

Considering most threads about the topics now under Sex And Gender used to be quite focus to specific conflicts on the rights of females by other groups, this board split has seen a drift with more threads that are not about ideology than the rights. It has been particularly noticeable this past week.

Many regular posters on this board would happily restrict their posts to exactly as you say and we usually are very consistent in bringing threads back to discussing the issues at hand. Again, the conflicts of the rights of all females by other groups.

The post you have quoted is actually highlighting the huge increase in young females, mostly teenagers, who have sought to transition. This is particularly troubling for parents, such as myself, of teens. I am watching young teen lesbians declare that they are trans in groups within months. This phenomena has been recorded in many countries and some countries such as some Scandanavian countries are trying to work out why rather than simply imply that it is 'natural'. That an increase of around 4000% for teenage females specifically that is not reflected in older female age groups is of major concern.

If you are interested, you might want to look up Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

Why is this of concern to women on this board? Because these are children and particularly young females. We are feminists, but many of us are also parents to these young females.

We want these young females to have the very best health care and to have thorough investigation and mental health treatment before undergoing the significantly higher risk of major life limiting, if not life shortening, medical treatments. The risks are higher for females than males. Removing ovaries at a very young age due to Testosterone treatment can mean a significantly higher risk of dementia and even worse, as early as in their 40s. This is just one.

So, our concern with these figures is not 'transphobic'. Our concern is that it should be researched thoroughly. Something the NHS services here in the UK have not even kept records about. The research has failed young transitioners of all sexes. It has suffered through, 'no debate'.

FWIW I don't think most people who are trans (i.e. by saying they are trans) are "doing it for attention". I don't think most people think that that's a motivating factor.

I still have no idea if I'm trans myself, the NHS website suggests I fit the definition of non-binary but either way surely it's factual whether or not you are trans, as - unlike with one's sexuality - it's the act of claiming to be trans that means you are? Unless you think there's such a thing as falsely claiming to be trans when you're not?

NHS: Some may have female genitals and breasts but do not identify as a female or feel feminine.

Some people do not define themselves as having a "binary" identity. For them the concept of gender is not relevant to their identity.

They may use different terms, such as agender, gender diverse, gender non-conforming, to describe their identity. However, as a group, they are often called "non-binary".

I guess we can't know the rationale. I see it as 'May as we'll be hung for a sheep as a lamb' rather than mocking women. But you might be right for all I know.

A woman in banking would never be allowed to dress that way.

[quote Keepemguessing]some of the snide mockery of people who are fluid about gender (eg Pip) shocks me

I see Pips Bunce as mocking womanhood.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html[/quote]
I don't think dressings has a woman in the macho, conservative world of investment banking is something you'd do for a laugh.

I also don't think Pip should be lauded as a female hero mind you.

some of the snide mockery of people who are fluid about gender (eg Pip) shocks me

I see Pips Bunce as mocking womanhood.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html

The number of people openly LGB has increased from 1.6% in 2014 to 2.7% in 2020.
Are people jumping on a trend?

In 16-24 year olds it's ~8% in 65+ it's ~1%. Did they all grow out of it?

I'm sorry but I can't help but remember my mum asserting in the early '90's that being gay was 'an attention seeking trend'. It makes me deeply uncomfortable to hear similar tropes about trans.

I'm not sure what the evidence base is that the higher numbers of people who are openly gay now vs in 1940 reflects legal and social shifts that make it acceptable (indeed less dangerous) to be gay rather than a trend.

And yes people may detransition but I know people who've been pretty fluid on their sexuality. People are bisexual, no one has a problem with that, yet some of the snide mockery of people who are fluid about gender (eg Pip) shocks me.

I believe gender is a social construct and sex is the source of female oppression so I am GC but I wish we could make it clearer that we are fighting for women's safety not against trans rights.

Arg, I know it's not that simple but I do worry about some of the things I read from GC. No it's not horrendous like the TRA death and rape threats but I don't agree with them on anything. It's harder to read stuff from people I do agree with on many things.

It doesn't actually cover access to the opposite sex's spaces. Single sex spaces are dealt with under the protected characteristic of sex, not gender reassignment.

Hence why dodgy groups - with dodgy motives - are pushing to get rid of the Protected Characteristic of Sex from the Equality Act.

They want rid of the single-sex exemptions.

(Along with the Protected Charactistics of Sexual Orientation, and Religion)

Fortunately the equalities act stands to stop the behaviour you are promoting to discriminate against trans people.

It doesn't actually cover access to the opposite sex's spaces. Single sex spaces are dealt with under the protected characteristic of sex, not gender reassignment. The process for relying on the exemption to create any kind of single sex space at all is the same whether you want to exclude all males or a subset.

Women's 800 metres, Olympics 2016. The first three winners had XY chromosomes.

Cheats.

Women's 800 metres, Olympics 2016. The first three winners had XY chromosomes.
Women don't stand a chance in their own sports. It's been going on a while now. And I do worry about it. As do many women. Don't tell me cheating women out of their rightful place is something not to worry about.

Cheats.

Women do have a right to their own spaces in law in the UK Mishy, which I think will protect women and girls.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/17/gender-neutral-toilets-public-buildings-single-sex-uk-robert-jenrick/

Can you explain the reason for the completely disproportionate numbers of young females seeking to transition Mishy? The numbers are consistently higher in most countries and even up to 4000% increases for young females.

How do you explain that Mishy? You have been on these threads long enough.

How do you explain the lack of then corresponding disproportionality of males in the adult transitioner numbers?

Can you provide some evidenced studies that prove your assertion that it is now just because people now are just feeling more free to be able to express it.?

If you wish to do so, then win the ballot box, or show a legitimate purpose for excluding trans people as per the Equality Act.

It's a high hurdle, and isolated incidents when the majority of trans people simply are going about their business - most likely trying to avoid gender criticals, fear and bigotry - are not going to win the day.

So step on up, join a party, get elected, get a majority and change the stance of what has been in place since 2010, with very little issue.

The rest of us in the meantime, will focus on gender equality and ensuring equal pay and opportunity.

Ask yourself how many transwomen have won gold at the Olympics and then stop worrying about it. Where is the major crisis aside from the one you are whipping up without any real justifiable reason?

yeah... ok.

So, it is the old n+1 argument again isn't it.

It is only a few.... be kind and don't 'whip' up a major crisis about it.....

I guess seeing this, you really should admit that you just hate women. Because clearly girls and women having fair sporting events and safe ones are not something you care about at all as long as that special subset of males gets what they want.

For anyone else who is reading and haven't read the sports threads yet, this is a great place to start.

thecritic.co.uk/every-sport-is-male-sport/

And two reviews of already peer reviewed studies are :

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/28/bjsports-2020-103106

The one from Harper et al draws similar conclusions to the first. Harper is a transwoman researcher. And has admitted that Laurel Hubbard's inclusion in the Olympics has given them pause. They were extremely uncomfortable defending that inclusion, particularly since their own study of 8 of their mates and their running times pre and post transition (sometimes a decade apart) was very influential in the OIC ruling.

So, is Harper transphobic?

Do these studies qualify as any real justifiable reason? Or what will it take?

On the contrary, with this evidence there is NO real justifiable reason for the inclusion of any male into the female categories of sport.

Next you will be saying that an able bodied person should be able to qualify for the Paralympics. Or that an adult should be able to compete with the Under 16s. Or that a 20 something in the prime of their fitness should be able to compete with the 80 year olds.

Your premise is flawed and you know it. Your intention is not to discuss but to aim that pointy finger of shame at women discussing the maintaining of the rights that they require to overcome the millennia of sexist discrimination they have faced and still face.