Gender argument - caught in the middle

@Waitwhat23 oh god the being told actual examples of people is mean drives me mad. Or they say it’s “just one” or “women commit sexual assault too!”

Do they think we’re morons?

A pp made a very good point upthread (apologies, can't remember who) in response to the accusations of 'meanness' for citing specific people/photos/news reports of crimes that, due to the obscuration of statistics in a general sense (rapists being recorded as female for example), we then do have to use specific examples.

And that is in response to MRA's demanding examples and then saying 'your examples are soooo mean!'

The reason I lurked for about a year was to understand the background of the discussion so I wouldn't wade in without the knowledge to back me up. The OP said in an early post that they are new to the debate but don't really have the time to read up on the background and is depending on others to inform her. Strange then that the initial OP and further posts by the OP have been so antagonistic.

You’re certainly confused if you think women are “bullying” trans people online.

It is the other way around. If a woman dares speak out to say they’re concerned about the safety of women and girls, they’re branded transphobic and cancelled. Which is why few are brave enough to speak in their own names, myself included.

You think someone with a penis belongs in womens spaces? Do you think rape victims and women fleeing from domestic violence should have to share spaces with males with penises?

Many TW take no hormones and have no surgery. You think these people belong in womens spaces?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1395838117635149832.html

What about hospital wards (where a woman was raped by a TW and the hospital denied it happened) and prisons?

What about female sport? You think Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges belong in the womens events?

Any woman who isn’t concerned about this stuff should take a long hard look at themselves

I cannot imagine my first post on the cat lover boards implying that I didn’t want to be seen as a crazy cat lady* and then complaining bitterly that my post was not received well.

(*using this an analogy only)

You forgot the bit about women pointing out the issues for female people and providing evidence are piling on instead of respecting a 'different view' (that they shouldn't defend their rights).

It was this.

I now know there is history to this that I wasn’t aware of

Of course, it was sandwiched between doubling down. But if you take an optimistic view, this is a some kind of acknowledgement.

They also then admitting they don’t like their posts being scrutinized and ‘pulled apart’.

I tried to go through and work out where you thought op 'cleared up' their view.

It goes:
Says sports should be sex segregated but up to sports to do this. No responsibility for trans.
Changing rooms everyone happy.
Uses terf as a slur.

Blamed sports officials (ignoring all other contexts, one of which they themselves brought up in op)

Middle ground fluff. No substance.

Women and trans second fiddled comment. (Nice forced teaming.)

Both sides accusation.

Accusation of being attacked.

Mad hyperbole both sides accusation.

Posting pictures of Lia I'd hateful.

Etc.

What exactly do you think was cleared up.

The only thing clear to me is op has a very set mindset they don't wanna terf, whilst expressing some terfy views, but they play it safe by pretending trans women have no agency or are pushing for these things which harm women.

Clear as mud.

Eresh, I suspect that people using that ’yeah but both sides, trans people are oppressed but I sort of get why women want to keep their rights, although I think they're mean in how they express it" Have never watched prominent activists pile on Helen Stanisland using sexual harassment to try to stop her asking her question.

Have never actually thought about the activists posting porn on the Ickabog tweets where parents where showing their children Joanne Rowling’s tweets about their work.

They take a very detached macro view and cannot acknowledge the complete lack of proportion and the difference in intent between the two.

It comes across as sanctimoniousness while the rest of us actually are trying to do something about the issues being discussed. That may not be there intention at all, but that it the impact.

I think the "yeah but both sides, trans people are oppressed but I sort of get why women want to keep their rights, although I think they're mean in how they express it" would be harder to maintain if OP watched the video Strawberry and I have both posted.

Sorry. I was too late.

And the atmosphere was set by that OP.

They did grudgingly acknowledge that they set that tone. But then didn’t engage in a different way.

But they certainly set the tone with that OP. I considered it hostile as an opening post myself, and said so at the time. To me it wasn’t ‘clumsy’, it was telling us that they didn’t want to be considered a terf on a board where we are called terfs constantly.

That OP was not so different from posts that appear here regularly that result in posters being further denigrated within future posts. Often on the first page.

@StrawberryLollipops I've already posted it so hope OP has watched it.

Even after OP cleared up their thoughts from some assumptions, they still continued.

Not seeing that much "clearing up" to be honest. Or acknowledgment that the OP was simplistic, biased and goady.

OP @Baggingarea have you seen this?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=38cwRMuYJ6w

It's being discussed here... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4518170--USA-vid-interview-with-male-prison-officer-regarding-male-trans-prisoners-Shocking

Maybe you can pop over and give your thoughts on it there? Do you find yourself falling on any one side of the fence or still caught in the middle?

Their second argument is that you can't police who can or can't enter women's facilities based on a genital inspection. I'll give them that one. So the best solution all round is NO natal males/people with penises, in women's spaces, no matter how they present their 'gender'.

Even after OP cleared up their thoughts from some assumptions, they still continued. Some people were (imo) being deliberately obtuse and fine if thats how they want to crack on but it's not realistic to expect a real discussion to continue if that's the case and I would've also gone on the defensive. But anyway, doesn't matter, it's done now.

They seemed to almost desperately want them to be different though.

To me, it was almost like OP wanted reassurance that they were not like regular posters on this board.

That was what she basically said in the last paragraph of the OP. She didn't see why should be called a "terf". Well, you and me, both.

terfs
bullying
throwing trans women to the wolves
mean girls

Op was the one that set the tone so can't really complain when they receive a bit of heat back.

Historically sex and gender are used interchangeably in UK law, simply because they always used to mean the same thing. They both referred to sex, but the word gender was seen as politer as sex was seen as a rude word because it is also used to mean intercourse.

Now that gender has taken on a new meaning this conflation in law will need to be resolved at some point.

It is important to be clear when a law refers either:
Sex - women/men
Legal sex - women+transwomen with GRC/men+transmen with GRC
Gender - women+those that identify as women/men+those that identify as men and/or non binary etc

If people make assumptions, it's best to set out your thoughts and position with more clarity.

Fair enough if someone wants to call out a conversation they don't think is fully thought out, fair enough to question, but a lot of the response posts were pure assumptions and the main thing the OP ended up doing is clarifying rather than continuing the conversation. Also fair to disagree/pick apart points but some were just mocking OP (and myself) and it's not respectful. I dont know, I also would've stopped engaging due to the atmosphere.

No one needs to contribute to a discussion they don’t want to be in, and sometimes multiple discussions can happen on one thread at a time.

Sure. Sometimes the discussion is helpful and sometimes the discussion around the discussion is helpful.

Like pointing out the falsities that the clearly activist posters attempt is a lack of logic, dissection of tactics etc. Such as ‘sex-based rights’ was only made up recently. Complete bullshit.

Sometimes pulling apart someone’s genuinely proposed solution helps others to see whether it works or not. Even if we have seen it before. There are many new people reading along who haven’t.

My mistake, op sidestepped by implying they'd prefer single changing rooms etc for all. Then obviously ignored any real world practical and safeguarding scrutiny.

I have little patience for people who won't engage beyond dropping in their half baked idea as a solution.

Of course others can give them the benefit of the doubt and continue the discussion whilst they ignore all the points they like.

I don't consider that a proper discussion though and will call it out.

Ie. Having a shared starting point, different solutions is the nature of this board. Despite peoples attempts to paint it as a echo chamber and hive mind.

It also doesn’t stop people discussing and dissecting that idea. And anyone posing ideas here should expect them to be dissected and explained and challenged. That is what makes those ideas stronger and solid foundations.

It is doesn’t hold up to scrutiny here, it is not a strong idea in its current form.