Sex/Gender Wars - What would be a win?

Tier 2 would only be available to individuals who have completed both social and medical transition (what we refer to as Post-Op). This tier would give access to a Women's Prison if req

this from the OP also seems to have been lost. I presume the Tier 2 certificate would also grant access to female hospital wards. We already know the OP uses women's toilets.

Do not come away from this conversation believing that the OP thinks women should have any spaces that don't have men in them

people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them

examples please @BlueberryCheezecake

As a teacher, I know lots and lots of "trans" female children. Far more than I ever should. I don't hate them. I feel like a bloody she-wolf protecting her cubs about them.

Don't you dare tell me I don't like "trans" people.

there are so many people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them, it's just a very particular kind of controlling cruelty, and goes to show a significant number of regular posters here just simply don't want trans people to exist, based purely on their own personal bigotry and discomfort.
In what way are we trying to restrict aspects of trans people's lives?
No one here is suggesting that trans people should face discrimination because of the way they live or that they should cease to exist.
Everyone has human rights which should be respected.

Well this is an interesting thread. Because it's one thing to say you're concerned about women's spaces etc but there are so many people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them, it's just a very particular kind of controlling cruelty, and goes to show a significant number of regular posters here just simply don't want trans people to exist, based purely on their own personal bigotry and discomfort.

So if nothing else this is now a very handy thread when people protest "we're not transphobic on mumsnet, we just have ~concerns" - no, plenty of you just plain don't like trans people and are delighted that the GC movement has given you a means to legitimise and weaponise that dislike.

joolzfromyork (OP) wrote - "if an individual wants to use blockers at the age of 16 then ok ... because all human beings have autonomy over their own bodies and life decisions."

People who have a male body almost always have autonomy over their own body. People who have a female body have much less autonomy - e.g. laws against abortion of a heathy foetus after a certain time limit in the UK or some other countries, or abortion of a foetus in any condition at any stage of pregnancy in many other countries.

I have just been reading a book about people being stuck on an island (which I have given to someone else and my perimenopausal brain has now forgotten the title).

If we are taking JUST the title into consideration then sex would win.

Put young trans women and young men on an uninhabited island with enough resources in equal numbers.

Put young women and young men on another uninhabited island with enough resources in equal numbers.

Come back in 70 years. Who’s ‘won’?

However of course if you include trans men and trans women on the island then you’ll get succession too. But the point is, stripped back to basics, back to essentials, it’s biology not gender. And you need the correct terminology of the word woman for the basics. Health and welfare and reproduction.

For female only spaces to be female only and gender neutral to be recognised for what it is - mixed. Two events in the olympics one a female only event for those biologically females and an open events for anyone else - the way it always was.

Especially this:

That you talk less about respecting and caring for women and actually do it.

That TW accept that they cannot meet their needs by making use of and removing rights and equality and inclusion from women. That they find a third way for themselves that does not require harm to others.

You don't like/trust/care/give a shit for transsexual people ... ok

Women say no, respect my rights, I am not a prop in any male person's life, I will not give up my equality, other solutions will have to be found.

You hear 'you don't like, trust or care about me'

There's the problem right there. I will not be your solution. You cannot have my rights and my equality to make yourself happier. Women not doing what you want are not 'not liking you' or 'not caring about you'. I pointed out way back in the thread you are acting from a core belief that you have a right to service and compliance by women, and you came here seeking co operation on the grounds that you were asking for that compliance nicely and with some gestures towards being nice while asking for compliance.

The issue is that women do not owe male people compliance. At all. Ever. Being born female is not a life sentence of subordination. And I will not bloody identify as a man to make other male people accept that.

But what's the alternative?

That you talk less about respecting and caring for women and actually do it.

That TW accept that they cannot meet their needs by making use of and removing rights and equality and inclusion from women. That they find a third way for themselves that does not require harm to others.

Break this down: seriously.

TW - we want your resources, rights, spaces, language, identity, inclusion, equality and protections under law, and if you don't give them to me you don't care about me, and it's ok that some women get hurt in meeting my needs because I matter more than they do.

Women - no. Meet your needs by all means but you can't have our stuff. No, you cannot take stuff off us. We're doing nothing to you but existing with stuff you don't like us having.

TW - you hate and don't care about us, you have to fix this, until you give up your stuff you're making this toxic and it's all your fault that people in our name are threatening to rape you, kill you, doxxing you, trying to get you sacked, threatening your kids. And now look! You're unreasonably mad about it!

I mean for pete's sake!

There needs to be some real reflection about how this has come to pass, and for government it needs to happen formally. How did this stuff get pushed without it coming into the public consciousness. That article by DH this part week about the Council of Europe is the kind of thing that needs to come out and be revealed. But it would be hard, many don't want people delving into this kind of stuff for reasons of their own.

Universities need to be doing the same thing, NGOs, and the medical establishment.

joolz do you think it is OK that Barbie Kardashian is in a women's prison? Do you think our collective sense of horror at this situation, given BK's history, is purely from a place of anti-transsexual sentiment? Do you not understand why we don't want to give up any rights for women to have safe spaces away from dangerous male bodied people like BK, or Karen White? Or any male at all to find another lawful way of being alone with a woman, no matter how vulnerable and traumatised she may already be?

Seems to still be on point to me.

So you've read all the answers and you still can't figure out why women might be a tad bitter?

You don't like/trust/care/give a shit for transsexual people ... ok

I'm really confused how you got that from the last few posts.

Blithely carry on, secure in my own ignorance?

Judging by the fact that your response to women's valid concerns is the above, I imagine that this is just what you'll do anyway.

I get the feeling you've posted because you want people to agree with you. And they do on many points. Yet your focus is on the concessions and privileges you want ringfenced for yourself. And thus you are reading 'no' as unfair and aggressive. It's really not.

You asked the question " What would be a win for GC feminists? " There is no win, because we are not seeking anything. We are only trying to stop people taking away our rights ; our right to safety, dignity and privacy, while going about our daily lives, the right to name ourselves and organise as a discrete group, the right to have our sex's physical needs met, the right to not be discriminated against because of our sex etc.
Perhaps your question should have been, " What do women have to lose, if gender becomes more important than sex?

Any ‘compromise’ means women having to give up some of our rights. So it’s not meeting half-way, it’s just trying to negotiate how much of what is ours we will be allowed to keep. We lose in every outcome.

This. I want a solution that gives equality and dignity and safety to all, but I'm no longer interested in compromise.

Thanks to the TRAs I'm now a hard NO to any biological males in women's single sex spaces. Having seen the miles that the TRAs have taken, I want the inch back too, to make sure this doesn't happen again.

For compromise, you're going to need to take it up with the TRAs.

As I've said, I'd like men to stop waging war. I'd also like them to stop and reflect about the use of conflict based language. It dictates a mind set that values aggression, 'winning' and 'losing'.
They see the person who capitulates as a 'loser'.

Hierarchies are based on aggression; communities on conflict resolution. The victims of aggression cannot be the ones to resolve the aggression; their choice is to resist or capitulate. Its up to the aggressors to change their behaviour.
De Bono's Thinking Course is a good place to start to challenge your thinking patterns, its only a couple of quid on Amazon.

Oh and Everyone gets to play this game on equal terms.

It is not a game male born people play while female people are the pawns on the board. Because fuck that.

Basic theory.

Be who you want, do what you want, present how you want. If you're a legal adult, make whatever changes to your body that you like.

The one rule: you cannot in the process of doing this, remove any existing right from someone else because it presents a boundary to you, or exclude someone else from a space because your presence makes it inaccessible. And their say so on what is accessible and what isn't, and what they need, is equal and matters as much as yours does.

Inclusion and diversity says: great. Make new spaces. Additional spaces. A wider variety of spaces. Create more options so everyone has equity of access and freedom. And accept that there are boundaries to your wishes, wants and needs are not the same thing, and not everyone can have access to everything all the time.

We need to think of a positive-sum outcome

yes

in the long run, pretending someone is something they're not is never kind. not to them, and not to others.

the only way society as a whole wins is for us to articulate and solve what's really happening here.

• why do so many teenaged girls want to be male? Given that this is impossible, how can we help them?

• why do a small but significant cohort of middle aged men suddenly feel an over whelming desire to be seen as a woman in mid life? again, this is impossible. how can we help them process this desire?

• why do some parents feel that if their children want to play with toys generally associated with the opposite sex, their child must be trapped in the wrong body? Given that there is zero evidence for gendered souls, so this is not true, how can we help those parents to accept and love their children just the way they are?

with the blind affirmation approach, everyone loses out in those scenarios. we need to to it differently