Don’t bother applying for a job if you think people can’t change sex, NHS trust tells health official

And i do not think my daddy, husband and precious boys are wrong, nasty or dangerous

Or obviously my male acquaintances and friends husbands

FILs views inherently wrong to be fair 🤔

And I’m a bit bored of posters who have no fucking idea what i think telling me that I absolutely think such and such

They make a big play about tarring people with the same brush and then do it themselves !

Oh and ‘GC people think ABC’ i still haven’t seen a definition of GC that goes any further than ‘believes sex is immutable’

The kind of hyperbolic, meandering posts we see from anti women posters have a sentiment I see quite often on newspaper article comments by men - 'Well, you wanted equality!!!'.

Agree.

@Lekisa658 if you pop back, it was me asking you why you wouldn't support your mum's request in mature age for women carers in washing.

You called me a creep, yet I'm the one wanting women's rights to be upheld.

Ides ... ... to get back to that word "objective" ' : You claim 'There is no bias-free, comfy, clear-cut and simple distinction between 'objective' and 'ideological'.'

I wonder. Is this particular claim intended to be free of bias? If not, why should we accept it? If so, how does it escape the denial it itself expresses?

Is it clear-cut in its objectivity? If so, how does it escape the strictures it expresses? And if not, why should we countenance even the possibility of its truth, rather than denying it as a mere subjective expression of your own possibly warped ideology?

You seem to think, Ides, that it is, in short, simply objectively true that there is no simple objective truth. But of course this cannot be true; it asserts its own falsity.

And, in any case, common sense is often enough to enable a clear-cut distinction between objective fact and ideologically-driven (mere) belief. I have five fingers on each hand, for a total of ten digits altogether. (Objective fact.) You, Ides , have been poorly educated and illustrate in your opinions an adage about the dangers of a little knowledge. (Ideologically-driven belief?)

But, anyway, if your own admittedly biased, uncomfortable, cloudy and over-complicated ideology has any even putative tendency to harm those I love (which it does: cutting off a young girl's breasts or a young boy's penis does them harm (another objective fact)), be prepared for some fairly serious and well-motivated opposition from the other side of the distinction you are toying with so incoherently.

Idk what masculine feelings are, for a start.

In the same way, to me, the "TW must use female single-sex spaces" case is steeped in the tacit view that if a person has a "man" gender identity, that person is inherently wrong, nasty, dangerous ... or at best, 'other'. Now, you may protest, 'No, I see nothing inherently wrong, nasty and dangerous about a person who feels masculine feelings' ... But, if you're a full-on TRA, as I see it, you do. You really do. This person who identifies as male is a 'worry' to you, if you see said person in your toilet or dressing room. This person could, theoretically, hurt you. At best, this person could, by virtue of having a gender that is somehow defined as 'man', mar your sense of dignity in some way.

Wondering if anyone's views align with the above?

[quote Ides]"@Ides why have you got "objective" in quotes? That implies that you don't believe there is an objective way to assess someone's sex."

It's because of what I learned, from Jurgen Habermas and others, about what Habermas called 'objectivism', over the years. This is the view, roughly, that while lots of knowledge is open to opinion, there remains a branch of knowledge that is 'scientific fact'. It 'is what it is', and that's that.

This 'objectivism' hit its nadir, many would say, under the Nazis' theories of race-differences. They asserted that races were plainly different - just as, indeed, vaginas were different to penises, one might say. It was easy, from that premise, to argue, for instance, that if you were Jewish, you were dangerous; if you were Aryan, you were peachy, fluffy, lovely and everything nice.

You can see where I'm going with this, no doubt ....

You have to grasp that for the Nazis, such racist thinking was absolute, undeniable, in-your-eyes objective fact. The difference in races was obvious and irrefutable. The only problem was that they pushed the reasoning beyond that to ... well, as we all know, such things as 'Jews are dangerous and evil' and 'Negroes are primitive'.

In the same way, to me, the GC case is steeped in the tacit view that if a person has a dick and bollocks, that person is inherently wrong, nasty, dangerous ... or at best, 'other'. Now, you may protest, 'No, I see nothing inherently wrong, nasty and dangerous about a person who has a dick and bollocks' ... But, if you're a full-on GCer, qua the standard Mumsnet definition, as I see it, you do. You really do. This person who has a dick and bollocks is a 'worry' to you, if you see said person in your toilet or dressing room. This person could, theoretically, hurt you. At best, this person could, by virtue of having a dick and bollocks, mar your sense of dignity in some way.

It's about the focus, really. You may admit that other natal women - those who are rough, violent, pushy, prejudiced, etc, etc ... they could be a problem in a women's toilet or changing room ... but you don't focus on them. You focus on the people who have a dick and bollocks.

Anyway, to get back to that word "objective" .... No. There is no bias-free, comfy, clear-cut and simple distinction between 'objective' and 'ideological'. That distinction is simply drivel, unless it's utterly and completely free of value-judgement. In this debate about those born males and those born females, it really and clearly isn't. It's loaded to the gills with value judgements about those who have vaginas, versus those who have dicks and bollocks ... way, way beyond what Biology has to say about it. This debate isn't about objective fact versus ideology. It's no more than Philosophy 101 to show that it isn't.

Jeez, you know, also, and as a corollary: One of the major thrusts of feminism has always been that of a preference for nurture over nature. 'It doesn't matter', the earliest feminists said, 'that I've got a vagina - I can still work in a factory, do mathematics; fight in war, lead a country'. But now, with the GC case against transwomen ... all that has apparently gone out of the window. It's perverse. You're equipped with a dick and bollocks ... no, you can't ever be other than dangerous; you can't ever be better than a worry to natal women around you. Natal women will always be vulnerable to you, because they have a vagina and never had a dick and bollocks, and that's absolutely that.

And no amount of hormones you, the transwoman, might take ... no level of starving yourself, the better to keep yourself smaller and as dainty as you can manage ... none of it will change the fact that you are inherently an oppressor, because you have - or once had - a dick and bollocks. To the point that yes, just one of you, in a women's changing room, is a menace to all the women there.

Yep, that right there ... that is pathetic. Holy crap, if feminism's purpose was to give women self-belief and strength, it's utterly failed if all it takes is one transwoman in our toilets and changing rooms to turn us all into terrified, squawking chickens. Jesus. Really, are we that delicate and fragile? Is a dick and a pair of bollocks still that much of a menace to us poor little things - even if they're attached to some poor sod who's as bullied, traumatised, desperate and miserable as most transwomen are?

I have no time or respect for this version of 'feminism'. Its sole aim, it seems to me, is to reassert women as victims, in the horrified and outraged realisation that women - or some women - are now being called bullies - because that's exactly what they are. It's beneath us, as women with guts, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of the one, fundamental, thing that feminism was meant to give us.[/quote]
Ok then. Well done for bringing Nazis into this.
Because of course stating that men and women have different biology is exactly the same as nazi race theory rather than just biological fact. Objective as in real and measurable, not as in the philosophy of Ayn Rand...
Do you realise how utterly ridiculous and hysterical your post sounds?

The kind of hyperbolic, meandering posts we see from anti women posters have a sentiment I see quite often on newspaper article comments by men - 'Well, you wanted equality!!!'. There's a very strong incel vibe to it.

The post by Ides above ignores such small details as particular groups (you might call them protected characteristics if you were so inclined) who need additional services or support or protections or considerations in a society which isn't equal. That's reality.

Also, the phrase 'dicks and bollocks' was used quite an astonishing amount given that the accusation I see continually leveled at those with GC views is 'you're all obsessed with genitals!!!'

Can I play?

Lekisa658 says ' "Woman" is a socially constructed gender identity.' ... '... that's the definition'.

-- Well, no. It will not do as a definition. "Woman" is a word. (Or in some uses, a concept, or something similar.) I suppose you mean something like, ' "Woman" means [or, perhaps, 'refers to', supposing we distinguish meaning from reference in some way] "[a certain] socially constructed gender identity" '.

This also will not do, as others have pointed out. If "woman" means [or refers to, blah, etc.] "socially constructed gender identity", it will follow that a woman is a socially constructed gender identity. But a woman is not a socially constructed anything (although, of course "woman" may well be a social construction; do you see how important this ('mention/use') distinction is?) A woman, as pp have noted, is a human being. And human beings are not social constructs, to labour the point somewhat; they are animals -- a kind of mammal, as any fule kno.

So you do not mean that. What, then? Try something like this: 'The meaning of "woman" is itself socially constructed on the basis of a certain socially constructed gender identity, so that a woman is someone whose gender identity is thus-and-so on the basis of that particular social construction'.

That is the best I can do for you, Lekisa658 . (And you will not do better. Trust me, I have read enough of your posts here to know this. And, yes, Lekisa658 , I do know more about this kind of thing than you. Even on the internet, we give away lots about ourselves. Trust me (or not, I do not care (this is just the internet, after all.)))

OK, now the ground is cleared a bit, how does your definition fare?

It has a fatal flaw, and one that is evident even without the clarification I have offered (in a spirit of charity, as well as just because it is nice to get things right.) The flaw is this: your definition of what a woman is depends on there being such a thing as gender identity. But there is no such thing as gender identity. So your definition has the unfortunate consequence that nothing satisfies it: there is no such thing as a woman in the sense given by your (attempted) definition.

How can we be so sure there is no such thing as gender identity? No need to reinvent the wheel here: the work has been done. See for instance, Alex Byrne, 'What is Gender Identity?'

If you want seriously to claim there is such a thing as gender identity, you will need to engage with Byrne's arguments here. (Try to understand what he says; the piece is short, non-technical and reasonably demotic.) And, as we have seen, you require the existence of this chimera in order for your definition to have any hope of finding a use.

So, in short [tldr ...] the proffered definition is useless.

[When I write of 'engaging' with Byrne, I mean trying to understand and argumentatively criticise what he says-- not slag him off as a transphobic terf (or, for that matter, defer to him as an MIT philosophy professor). Of course I refrain from holding my breath while you do this, Lekisa658 . But anyway, we can try.]

""view that if a person has a dick and bollocks, that person is inherently wrong, nasty, dangerous ... or at best, 'other'."""

Nope.
Just inherently a biological man who has no place in a woman's space because of safeguarding issues.

Feminism gave us spaces which we could call our own for our privacy, dignity and safety. The reason we "focus on the people with dicks and bollocks" instead of OTHER people, is that statistically, the people with those anatomical attributes are the ones that can hurt us.

In fact, 97% of all sexual assaults are committed by that kind pf person.

Isn't this just another thinly veiled " you shouldn't be looking at their dicks and bollocks if you get offended" argument? Sounds like it to me.
What if a victim of rape or sexual abuse didn't want to be faced with your theoretical "dick and bollocks" swinging about in the changing room? Oh I forgot - the "triggered" trans woman who can't possibly change in the male facilities trumps the "triggered" woman who has actually been the victim of male assault.
And frankly, it's not women's problem to solve the "bullied, traumatised, desperate and miserable" men who identify as women. It's up to the male estate to encompass them and "be kind", and widen the scope of what it is to be a trans woman. Why should the female estate have to solve that problem?

And it is OBJECTIVE FACT that males commit the overwhelming majority of sex offenses. It is also a fact that it opens the floodgates for any male HOWEVER HE IDENTIFIES to say "I'm trans" and invade the female spaces set up to protect us.

Or maybe we are all just "pathetic" and "delicate". Even victims of rape. Get over it ladies.

I don't think Ides has added anything of relevance to their post from way back up thread.

They are still trying to argue the 'scale' argument to support creating a group of males that somehow seem warrant exemption in safeguarding protocols regarding females of all ages and male children.

And seem too again misrepresent what feminists were fighting for in the past and now.

"Blue and yellow are different colours".

"Aha! Because you've said that, it's easy to argue that blue means sadness and yellow means petulance"

This 'objectivism' hit its nadir, many would say, under the Nazis' theories of race-differences. They asserted that races were plainly different - just as, indeed, vaginas were different to penises, one might say. It was easy, from that premise, to argue, for instance, that if you were Jewish, you were dangerous; if you were Aryan, you were peachy, fluffy, lovely and everything nice.

Do you understand that anyone saying that different races are different races are literally saying that races are not the same race?

If you think that it is therefore 'easy to argue', based on that premise - that different races exist - that certain races 'match' certain characteristics, then that's your poor reasoning skills showing themselves.

It's a bit like certain sexes 'matching' certain genders.

One of the major thrusts of feminism has always been that of a preference for nurture over nature. 'It doesn't matter', the earliest feminists said, 'that I've got a vagina - I can still work in a factory, do mathematics; fight in war, lead a country'. But now, with the GC case against transwomen ... all that has apparently gone out of the window.

You do understand that you're completely wrong, don't you?

You're seriously saying that 'the GC "case" is that women can't work in a factory or do mathematics'?

That's what you've gleaned? You're either a liar or you have read two sentences and managed to misunderstand them.

Ask yourself why you have to lie about what you're arguing against.

Look - genuinely, you seem interested in having some sort of argument - try to actually understand what the' GC case' is (clue: it's that sex matters sometimes, not very often, but in certain cases, and that can't change).

Write out what you think the GC 'case' is, and ask people who claim to be GC whether this is an accurate description of their beliefs. If they say 'no, wtf', go away and correct it.

When you've managed to accurately describe the GC 'case', THEN apply your arguments to it.

"YoUr'E AlL NaZis" doesn't wash.

House! My bingo card has been completed.

Scandalous!

Also - hear, hear!

Godwin's Law invoked here, you disgust me with your comparisons to Nazism. Please stop. Thank you.

I hate to feed the troll…

But Ides, the point is not that any specific man is a danger to us, but on average they are more likely to be. So we are allowed private spaces which exclude them.

Sex is bloody binary - it’s literally all about reproduction and I defy you to show me a third sex.

It’s not about one trans woman in our spaces (have happily shared with them in the past), it’s that any man can self ID as such.

It amazes me when TRAs cast millennia-old basic facts of human life as some sort of new GC belief that we've recently cobbled together in order to be mean. Like human societies have always been totally cool with "dicks and bollocks" swinging about where the little girls are.

But also, simultaneously, we're old fashioned and regressive, stuck in 1930s Germany where anyone who believes in objectivity and facts apparently belongs. Facts are for fascists.

Indeed, what a load of shite.

It's beneath us, as women with guts, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of the one, fundamental, thing that feminism was meant to give us.

And that was what exactly? What was feminism meant to 'give' us?

What a load of shite

"@Ides why have you got "objective" in quotes? That implies that you don't believe there is an objective way to assess someone's sex."

It's because of what I learned, from Jurgen Habermas and others, about what Habermas called 'objectivism', over the years. This is the view, roughly, that while lots of knowledge is open to opinion, there remains a branch of knowledge that is 'scientific fact'. It 'is what it is', and that's that.

This 'objectivism' hit its nadir, many would say, under the Nazis' theories of race-differences. They asserted that races were plainly different - just as, indeed, vaginas were different to penises, one might say. It was easy, from that premise, to argue, for instance, that if you were Jewish, you were dangerous; if you were Aryan, you were peachy, fluffy, lovely and everything nice.

You can see where I'm going with this, no doubt ....

You have to grasp that for the Nazis, such racist thinking was absolute, undeniable, in-your-eyes objective fact. The difference in races was obvious and irrefutable. The only problem was that they pushed the reasoning beyond that to ... well, as we all know, such things as 'Jews are dangerous and evil' and 'Negroes are primitive'.

In the same way, to me, the GC case is steeped in the tacit view that if a person has a dick and bollocks, that person is inherently wrong, nasty, dangerous ... or at best, 'other'. Now, you may protest, 'No, I see nothing inherently wrong, nasty and dangerous about a person who has a dick and bollocks' ... But, if you're a full-on GCer, qua the standard Mumsnet definition, as I see it, you do. You really do. This person who has a dick and bollocks is a 'worry' to you, if you see said person in your toilet or dressing room. This person could, theoretically, hurt you. At best, this person could, by virtue of having a dick and bollocks, mar your sense of dignity in some way.

It's about the focus, really. You may admit that other natal women - those who are rough, violent, pushy, prejudiced, etc, etc ... they could be a problem in a women's toilet or changing room ... but you don't focus on them. You focus on the people who have a dick and bollocks.

Anyway, to get back to that word "objective" .... No. There is no bias-free, comfy, clear-cut and simple distinction between 'objective' and 'ideological'. That distinction is simply drivel, unless it's utterly and completely free of value-judgement. In this debate about those born males and those born females, it really and clearly isn't. It's loaded to the gills with value judgements about those who have vaginas, versus those who have dicks and bollocks ... way, way beyond what Biology has to say about it. This debate isn't about objective fact versus ideology. It's no more than Philosophy 101 to show that it isn't.

Jeez, you know, also, and as a corollary: One of the major thrusts of feminism has always been that of a preference for nurture over nature. 'It doesn't matter', the earliest feminists said, 'that I've got a vagina - I can still work in a factory, do mathematics; fight in war, lead a country'. But now, with the GC case against transwomen ... all that has apparently gone out of the window. It's perverse. You're equipped with a dick and bollocks ... no, you can't ever be other than dangerous; you can't ever be better than a worry to natal women around you. Natal women will always be vulnerable to you, because they have a vagina and never had a dick and bollocks, and that's absolutely that.

And no amount of hormones you, the transwoman, might take ... no level of starving yourself, the better to keep yourself smaller and as dainty as you can manage ... none of it will change the fact that you are inherently an oppressor, because you have - or once had - a dick and bollocks. To the point that yes, just one of you, in a women's changing room, is a menace to all the women there.

Yep, that right there ... that is pathetic. Holy crap, if feminism's purpose was to give women self-belief and strength, it's utterly failed if all it takes is one transwoman in our toilets and changing rooms to turn us all into terrified, squawking chickens. Jesus. Really, are we that delicate and fragile? Is a dick and a pair of bollocks still that much of a menace to us poor little things - even if they're attached to some poor sod who's as bullied, traumatised, desperate and miserable as most transwomen are?

I have no time or respect for this version of 'feminism'. Its sole aim, it seems to me, is to reassert women as victims, in the horrified and outraged realisation that women - or some women - are now being called bullies - because that's exactly what they are. It's beneath us, as women with guts, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of the one, fundamental, thing that feminism was meant to give us.