Disagreement with husband about trans debate

is there a clear distinction between real trans and pretend trans?

Of course not. The outcome of including so many identities under the trans umbrella was to increase the numbers to increase the power of the group's voice. It meant that when they all insisted that statistics reflected only gender, never sex, that they have become hoist by their own petard in a way.

They really left themselves open to this uncertainty. But just saying there is uncertainty as to whether it is 'true' trans or not committing the crimes also temporarily hides the fact that it COULD all be true. Because who is the arbiter of transness? And the numbers could still indicate that transitioned males (who some may label as 'true' trans) STILL commit these crimes at a similar rate of other males.

It could be said that the disaggregation of 'true' and 'not true' will not prove to be as favourable as activists vehemently wish.

It is quite eye opening to see the number of transitioned males distance themselves from the other identities under the umbrella, though. It seems that the success of increasing their political power has meant the original group now feels more marginalised because they no longer feel safe, from their own group, to speak.

Therefore, it is very transphobic in the view of the extreme activists to even suggest there are 'real trans' people vs 'pretend trans' people. Acceptance without exception is the rule!!! Yet, I see allies and other trans people use this terminology ("real trans") more and more regularly now.

Maybe Eryn can counter that and tell us if and how the distinction can be done though.

@Helleofabore, thinking about the stats, is there a clear distinction between real trans and pretend trans?
If no one is born trans and it's based on conscious choice and is subject to change (for some through the day), where is the dividing line or test to know a man is really thinking that he feels like a women, or a man pretends to feel like a woman?

Neither is actually possible unless you were conceived female and any 'femaleness' test could be failed by women who aren't typical women.

I'm struggling with this as I would likely fall into a neurodivergent category which struggles with grey areas when science shows facts.

I know people aren't binary because they cannot be two, they are male or female. Eryn's /@/$ tone iritates me, in the same that the line "I don't mean to be rude, but...(rude comment)" irritates me. Information is provided that I may or may not agree with and I'm told how to interpret it as though my interpretation will not be valid.

Interesting how 'acceptance without exception' is a rule - but something that must be given to the demander of it, without reciprocation.

One never sees these things modelled back to others for example. Like accepting without exception that people have different styles of posting. Or different beliefs. It seems to be an idea of there being takers with no responsibility, and givers who are doing it all wrong, are shamefully lacking for not just magically knowing and doing better, and need to give, now, immediately, or else.

It's all rather reminiscent of parenting a toddler. Except you patiently teach a toddler that no, this doesn't win friends and influence people well, and they move on.

It would be genuinely so refreshing if someone who believes trans women should have equal access to single sex spaces answered it as I've never seen them do so.

It's data based and it's vital in a serious debate that people engage with statistical evidence.

I asked someone who chipped me for mentioning the old study yesterday. They said the study was old and not really useful. They then said that the stats are unreliable because there are some males gaming the system.

They did NOT come back with any segregated data that separated real and not real trans people. They did not answer my suggestion as to campaigning to have these real trans stats pull out from the 'not real' trans people. I also asked them to tell us how we, personally, can tell the difference now that we have been told that 'acceptance without exception' is the rule.

nada.

Don't be silly lynn (may I call you lynn?), posters like ErynisTrans don't see questions like that /notsarcasticatall

50% of the transwomen in both the UK and US prison systems are sex offenders.

so either

1) transwomen are massively more likely to be sex offenders than your average man

or

2) men who are sex offenders are identifying as transwomen

which is it?

Did @ErynIsTrans, or anyone who shared their beliefs, answer this? Sorry if I missed it.

It would be genuinely so refreshing if someone who believes trans women should have equal access to single sex spaces answered it as I've never seen them do so.

It's data based and it's vital in a serious debate that people engage with statistical evidence.

Yes, it's infantilising. A bit like living in a play - all those stage notes, exit left pursued by a bear etc.

I am all for having honest discussion. But I do not respond well at all to even subtle manipulation - tone policing, topic policing included.

/not at all manipulative no siree

You forgot to add /suspicious

Or some other equally pointless, self aggrandising twonkery.

It's all in a days work I suppose. Chastising naughty women who insist on having a material reality that exclued me me me me me

along 'with' no tone indicators.

Sorry.

I can see the use of those but the genuine one is a weird one, and obviously it’s nothing to do with politeness unless you are on a site/forum which requests them

On another thread though, the plea not to discuss the material reality that sex is immutable was followed up stating that bringing up chromosomes triggers dysphoria.

(along no tone indicators on the many posts I read)

I am wondering if I am alone in finding some manipulative nature in these posts. These are posts on a board that was hived off for the purpose of discussing 'sex and gender' after all.

Ah ha! A new game /sohappy.

Does that mean I don't need

Do you really? /ShockediItellsya!

I think what these kids really need is /patronising.

Yes. In a space where it is not known it does stand out as arrogant, sarcastic, insincere.

And I say that as one who has used all of the [b] [/b] as I worked in the pre-print industry pre WYSIWYG

Slightly askance at the rather arrogant assumption that no one else here might be neurodivergent, or have difference in experience and therefore everyone here requires 'educating' and 'updating'.

The cost of posting as you choose without regard for others is that they are more likely just to skip past your posts. But you do you.

but it wont affect you if i use them for anyone who may need them /gen /lh /npa /srs

Ah! Wilful obfuscation and/or the assumption that ones own 'clarity' will suffice for all.

Whatever happened to the Crystal Clear English lot? Another victim of SM speak?

it is a tone indicator, used to ensure neurodivergent people can be included in conversation as some of them can have difficulty with reading tone in text (myself included) It can be especially difficult with sarcasm and genuine tone. They don't need to be used after every sentence, just if you're not sure if your point is clear. (also I have kids of my own lmao I'm not 12)

Oh! So shut up MNers you are being rude.

Of course reading the room and figuring out that this space has its own lexicon and tends to use real words, say "I am genuinely asking because.." or the biuscuit, or the envy/not envy face etc would have been a better use of politeness. Cos whatever online space you usually inhabit is obviously not known to many here.

Had you really intended to make yourself/selves clear you might have noted that. When in Rome, etc.

It looks like something that might have evolved on forums that use BBcode to provide users with formating options. (For those unaware, that's where instead of having idiosyncratic ^ and tags for italics and bolding like here, you enclose the text in [i][/i] and [b][/b].)*

I remember that. Going back a bit now.

VestofAbsurdity

What, that ‘inclusion’ only prioritises the males?

Yeah… it is quite obvious.

[quote Enough4me]@VestofAbsurdity good point and also I don't want men changing in with me when I go swimming. So I'd like the tag team to tell me what I'm supposed to do as I'm a woman who wants women's facilities.[/quote]
Noticeable that neither member of the tag team have answered it. I, and other posters no doubt, will draw our own conclusions from the lack of response.