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

And the fact that we're basically here wondering if all that abuse is justified is... something that makes me feel very uncomfortable. As if we feel like there must be something that we're missing that would make all that shit acceptable.

As a PP said, we try and find solutions. And we're met with more abuse, threats and a distinct air of superiority and 'I will do what I want, you're not the boss of me'.

I was lurking on the relationships board over the weekend though, so maybe that's where I'm drawing parallels from.

When you're being constantly told that you're evil and deserve to be beaten up and killed, and when left-wingers you once respected are condemning you, it's natural to have doubts. Few people like being told that they're beneath contempt and don't deserve a job or even to be alive because of their views. Worse, the genderist side is constantly accusing feminists of believing things that they don't, or of doing things that they haven't. I think that the effect of this aggressive criticism is to make gender critical feminists constantly re-examine their views, but we almost never desert them. Gender critical views themselves are sound.

And as other people have pointed out, it's the genderist side who're making these awful, dehumanising comments, not the gender critical side. Another score for 'we are not the baddies'.

The only thing that ever causes me any doubt is the insistence that there is 'scientific evidence' of people having the wrong brain in their body; and also the stories of young children who fix on the idea of being in the wrong body. But I don't believe that anyone really is wired, from birth, to feel like they're in the wrong body. Something has happened in their environment. And even if they were, it doesn't mean they are the opposite sex. Yes we should be tolerant and accepting to a point, but not to the point of reducing the definition of woman to 'an identity that anyone can have'.

Yet coming out as Trans seems to be something lauded and celebrated. Companies leap all over themselves to use trans employees as PR and political parties select them to increase their inclusive credentials. Where is the same detriment?

Exactly. When a group of people had a huge say (and in many cases actually write the policies) for every public service organisation (police, CPS, NHS, All government departments, councils, schools , Scottish government, Welsh government, the BBC, most mainstream media outlets, Google, the employers of 1/4 of the population, most universities etc) I’m not they can claim to be a marginalised, badly treated group.

The policy writing, just to be clear, isn’t just ‘be nice, don’t bully, don’t discriminate against people based on their trans status. That is already fully protected in law in quite a comprehensive way from the moment a person takes the first step to say they are trans.

Much of the policy produced by Stonewall etc for all of the above organisations is a comprehensive list of privileges that override the legal rights of any other protected group. Where Equality Impact Assessments are actually carried out when making a fundamental change in an org like making all the toilets single sex for eg. the needs and legally protected rights of other groups like women or women with religious beliefs are generally ignored.

This is an unprecedented and unlawful disregard for the rights and protections of people, mainly women. That is nothing like the gay rights movement at all.

I am always so surprised at the way people have misconstrued the arguments agains trans ideology

Absolutely! Fundamental misunderstandings.

On some level, though, I think this misunderstanding has arisen out of the idea that there is no difference between males and females - "except for their genitals". Which is why we always get the " Why are you so focused on genitals" line.

So, the idea is that " Why shouldn't a male become a woman if that is what he wants or how he feels". Of course, this sentiment rests entirely on notions of what a woman 'is like' - usually based on stereotypical caricatures.

I think it's entirely healthy to re-examine your position on a regular basis. After all, is that not what we are asking the gender extremists to do? I actively seek out the other viewpoint and critically examine it, just in case I am wrong.

However, the more I read and the more I see, the more I am convinced that the gender extremist movement is homophobic, misogynist and more than a little racist and I'm simply not comfortable in that particular church.

There was a thread asking this exact question a couple of years ago.

I remember that thread. And I know back then there were concerns about which side is insisting on beliefs that effectively match Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism - I can't seen that those apprehensions were misplaced.

Honestly, I still struggle to see the issue

For anyone who struggles to see the issue, would you really be OK if you or your DD ended up in prison or hospital or a refuge, and had to sleep next to a fully male-bodied person who had identified as a woman and demanded to be there? Even if that person was a convicted sex offender/rapist?

What if your DD was a girl guide and any teen boy who liked could identify as a girl and be left in a tent with her overnight?

Would you be OK if your DD was a promising sportswoman and lost her place in the olympic team to male-bodied people because they said they were women?

This is what's happening. There is a reason we have single sex spaces and categories - because without them, the female sex is at much greater risk and less protected. Of course men can and do attack women anyway in many contexts, and of course women can attack women too - but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to be able to have a safe single-sex space for women when it matters - like when you are asleep, vulnerable, in danger from an aggressive ex, etc.

The other very important thing is that women by which I mean female, biological women are still oppressed and disadvantaged - partly because of prejudice and misogyny (e.g. sex pay gap, women being left with majority of childcare/housework/mental load) and partly because of biology (women give birth taking them out of the labour market, women are on average smaller and weaker making them more at risk from sexual assault, DV etc).

Feminists, and supposedly modern states, are trying to redress this. We can't redress it if categories of people are no longer defined by sex but by "gender identity".

Imagine a future where biological females are no longer active in elite sport because all the place are taken by male bodied people identifying as women. But women can't even challenge that because although they are being eliminated on the basis of sex, the team is still all "women".

Imagine as a woman you miss out on the directorship, pay rise or women in business award which is given to a male who has climbed to the top as a man and then transitioned last year. But you can't complain because they're a woman too.

Oh and if you even dare to question why this is happening, you lose your job.

Still no issues with this?

There was a thread asking this exact question a couple of years ago.

But really, there is only one side that is routinely threatening to rape, torture and kill the other side; only one side that tries to completely silence the other by trying to get their meetings closed down, reporting them to their employers, banning them from social media; only one side that has been tried and convicted for physical assault against a member of the other side.

So I don't find it very hard to know which side I'd prefer to be on.

Yes I question all the time. But my issue has never been about toilets or denying anyone's existence. My concern has always been about autistic young people, particularly girls, because I was one myself and know how I thought as a child and young person and what I grew up into. It bothers me that children like me are vulnerable to life altering interventions.

No, you only feel like that because the gender ideologists present as a 'with us or against us' situation, whereas in reality it is so obviously a case of needing to have an open dialogue about the competing interests of two groups.

And no, because another reason we are in this mess is because of the extremity of the position of the gender ideologists: that any man who says he is a woman, and all they have to do is say it, is literally a woman and so must be treated as one in every sense. That is so obviously a ridiculously extreme position. And the safeguarding risks of it are so obvious.

So its the other side that have stopped this being a reasonable debate, held reasonably. So don't let their ideology trap you into an ' all or nothing' position, because that really isn't what the debate should be about. It should be able protecting the rights and safety of all those affected, those who are women and those who identify as part of the trans umbrella.

And because the misogyny is SO in your face. Right down to GC feminists being told they are 'anti-trans' and 'hate trans people.' Such a classic line when women try to stand up for their own interests. Not really any different from how feminists used to be told that they 'hated men' when they wanted to talk about women's rights.
And the whole ' be kind' 'have empathy' ' step aside and let someone else before you, at cost to yourself' is the role misogyny has put women in for, well, for ever.

But really.....perhaps some gender criticals need to have some different gender critical thoughts over what they are really out to preserve? I want for my daughters equal opportunity, not sub servience to an antiquated gender control system with jobs for the boys first.

Say what? I am always so surprised at the way people have miscontrued the arguments agains trans ideology. Where does 'girls should be protected from harm and we need to ensure they have an equal chance at success by providing extra support and not holding them back' morph into ' a sub sevience to an antiquated gender control system with jobs for the boys first'?

Single sex spaces and provisions recognise the inherent biological vulnerabilities of the female sex - and these vulnerabilities are instinctively felt and registered, even if not consciously.

If an individual woman wants to invite an individual man into her private space, then she is free to do so - certainly in western culture; but that is not the same as all men having free access to women's spaces. These spaces and provisions act as safeguards. they are not a comment on any one individual in particular.

I want for my daughters equal opportunity, not sub servience to an antiquated gender control system with jobs for the boys first.

But this is exactly what the gender ideology is perpetuating!

When you talk about equality for your daughters I assume you mean equal treatment for them when compared to men?

This ideology allows a man who has grown up with all the automatic societal and professional advantages that men enjoy - to then transition and be counted as a woman.

The reason why your daughters still need to seek equality is because society treats women less favourably based on their sex. Do you think having people raised with all male advantages and no female based disadvantages being included in the same category as your daughters will help or hinder their quest for equality?

Do you think that having executives who wait until they are at the top of their career and earning potential before transitioning and having their salary and position counted in the female stats is going to expose or conceal the sex pay gap?

We are hearing reports that suddenly, over the last few years, the representation of women in senior boards has increased. I can think of several late transitioning top executives off the top of my head - it won’t take many of them to skew the numbers noticeably.

You may have the opinion that there aren’t enough late transitioners to make a real difference but we have no way of knowing either way - it is being deliberately kept under the radar and we are prevented from assessing the impact on women. This is not proof that it is not happening.

You mention a pps reference to ‘future problems’ that may be suffered by women but if you actually read the discussions in the Feminist boards you will see that there is ample evidence of actual harms being done to actual women right now!!

Why do you think the Ministry of Justice are in the middle of a court case brought by a women who was raped while imprisoned with a TW?

From what I can see trans peeps have been around in modern life for fifty years in larger numbers, and there are only the isolated incidents catalogued on deliberate threads on here that incite a feeling that "trans" is a bigger problem then it really is

Look up Katie Dolotowskis 10 and 12 year old victims, and Karen White’s victims and Karen Jones victim’s (one was female) and the many female victims of rape and sexual assault carried out either by men pretending to be tw to access their victims or by ‘genuine’ (we still haven’t found the definition by which to measure genuine) tw which are sexually violent.

Please don’t be so callous and dismissive of women and girls that have been harmed by this. How many rapes and sexual assaults do you think there can be before you deem it to be too many? How many sexual assaults at knifepoint is too many for Katie Dolotowski’s 10 year old victim?

Your timescales are totally wrong. The ‘trans umbrella’ was drastically expanded to include cross dressers, drag queens etc only recently. Prior to that it was a tiny number of actual transsexuals (less than 5000), many of whom are very aware of their birth sex and not making women feel in and wouldn’t dream of using female only facilities. Some are actually campaigning for women’s rights on this matter. The recent and dramatic increase in the number of male born people demanding (and being misled by Stonewall) access into women’s spaces is the problem.

The male class overwhelmingly instigates violent and sexual crimes against the female class

Yes, and some of that is down not just to social conditioning, but also down to biology. Males do present far more at certain ends of certain spectrums; just as females present more at others.
There are some natural tendencies - which can be ameliorated or civilised through socialisation.

am a fan of "hold the person offending responsible" not a class of people

I see this argument a lot lately. It seems incredibly naive. Plus in this current era where rape and assault is so poorly prosecuted, why do you think lowering safeguarding measures or lowering our children’s boundaries is a good thing?

I have moments when I wonder this. I wrote a very long document for a friend asking about this. He said he 'heard JK Rowling had taken a bit of a beating', but knew nothing else about it, so I gave him my views... that was 3 weeks ago and I have had radio silence since. I think maybe we aren't friends anymore.

It does make me wonder.

But what always strikes me is the bad faith lack of discussion from the other side that makes me ask myself what I'm missing. The pushback is so huge and disproportionate.

I say: 'I'm not sure putting self ID into law is a good idea for either women or trans people themselves'

They say 'you hate trans people and aren't giving us the right to exist.'

It's not a conversation on the same terms.

I tie myself up with the LGB issue, because I think that's where a lot of this over-zealous fighting for Trans Rights comes from. So many institutions were caught on the wrong side of history there. Homophobia was rife in this country - and violent at times. It took a long time for the community to reach the acceptance they have today.

So it's as if the trans rights issue is suddenly a way to make amends for systemic bigotry from the past. But there is no thought going into it beyond 'we will do better this time.'

I am sometimes half persuaded when I hear - as a poster said above - 'this is just like Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' Because it's a sensitive issue and that thinking about LGB people makes me angry. Along with the 'Gay people are predators.'

It is true that on the face of it, GC concerns DO look the same and I can see how to a kind observer, they look identical. I am hyper sensitive about it.

One of the differences I note is that coming out as trans is nothing like coming out as gay 20/30 years ago.
My brother is gay and, although there were always signs, he didn't come out until his 20s. I know he felt shame and embarrassment and worried how others would view him. He worried about how it would effect him professionally and personally. Who would shun him or sideline him?

Yet coming out as Trans seems to be something lauded and celebrated. Companies leap all over themselves to use trans employees as PR and political parties select them to increase their inclusive credentials. Where is the same detriment? They talk about fear of discrimination, but is discrimination actually happening to them? If it is, why are so many teenage girls doing this in whole peer groups? It must be more than Ok and accepted. It seems to be rewarded in some way. It isn't the same.

My version of 'be kind' has always involved treating individuals with respect and tolerance. I will call a trans woman 'she' and by their preferred name. I would never say anything like 'but you're just a man in a dress' because it is needlessly unkind.

But put a gun to my head and tell me to say that that person has ACTUALLY changed sex and I can't do it. I can't because it's not true, I can treat that person how they want to be treated to make them comfortable, but I can't change how I feel about what a woman is.

Is that like saying 'gay people shouldn't exist. It's a lifestyle choice and they are perverts.'? I don't believe so. But I will constantly question it.

I think the thing that stands out is that many of us GC women actively want to find a solution. Everyone seems to have a different boundary line on this issue.

Some think women's spaces are fine to be inclusive, but sports is a no go, for others it is prisons, for others refuges, for many not changing rooms...

So there is usually some degree of realisation that complete TWAW belief in all contexts and all situations isn't desirable. So where do we draw a legal line?

And then it's back to the point that we already drew that line a long time ago. No men in women's spaces, sports, prisons, refuges, political women's positions...any of it. We did it already and we aren't trying to reduce anyone's rights or sideline anyone, we are just holding fast to the rights we already have.

It is saying - pretty much as JK did 'we have fought for this. We will support you to fight what you need too, but it is not what we already have. What you need is different'

I can't see it as a hateful position to hold.

Yes quite. It’s easy enough to see why they’re working so hard to try to erase accurate statistics based on sex.

The male class overwhelmingly instigates violent and sexual crimes against the female class.

Well, that's one of the "gender stereotypes" they want to break. They want that to not be acknowledged.

Uhm...

The male class overwhelmingly instigates violent and sexual crimes against the female class.

That is why said protections are in place.

But really.....perhaps some gender criticals need to have some different gender critical thoughts over what they are really out to preserve? I want for my daughters equal opportunity, not sub servience to an antiquated gender control system with jobs for the boys first

What some feminists do share in common with Christians is an understanding of the natural dignity of sex, and of motherhood in particular. A recognition that there are some general differences between the sexes - as constructed via DNA, hormones and physical structure and function.

Many women do want to stay at home when their children are young; do enjoy home-making......more so than their male partners; and feel a more instinctive fierceness when it comes to their children - born out of their natural bond with their child - rendered through biology and the hormonal surge that follows childbirth.

There is, and can be, dignity in fulfilling a stereotypical 'female/feminine role.

As well as wanting opportunities for girls to express their individual talents and skills, there also needs to be a place for girls to want to be mothers and homemakers too, without them feeling that they are somehow useless or letting the side down.

Honestly, I still struggle to see the issue and am a fan of "hold the person offending responsible" not a class of people due to their presentation/identity. That smacks too much of a bad history of segregation and discrimination.

Ok. So therefore we should throw the safeguarding guide away. And allow all facilities where women are vulnerable to be open access to everyone. Because currently the norm is to exclude a whole heap of people based on their sex class, male. And strangely, the crime statistics uphold this! And the same crime statistics also do not show males who identify as women to have the crime rate of women... they more reflect the male stats.

So, if we are willing to remove safeguarding measures for one subset of males (with similar patterns of sex offence crimes), why don’t we do it for all males?

I actually have come to believe it's positive - as it smashes gender stereptype norms keeping us all down.

Please explain how?

When the graphics are produced for IWD speakers last years for the FT there was only one person wearing an off the shoulder top with a come hither look. The same person that tells us how to woman better and how to be a better feminist.

Is that busting gender stereotypes? How?

Christians also tend to emphasise the dignity and importance of motherhood...and I think that is something that certain strands of feminism have neglected at times, in favour of pushing for equality as sameness.

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I still remember the 'stereotypical' feminist and it's almost hilarious that the new stereotype of feminist is someone who wants to preserve gender norms and keep women in the kitchen.