Gender argument - caught in the middle

"It’s the picking apart and assuming bad faith that is making me assume a tone. "

Code for "how dare people debate this with me. They are the reason I'm using odd language "?

What struck me about that letter from the councillor is that I bet there are loads of meetings at the council that cover disability access or needs that don't have any disabled representatives involved!

as you use other words.
Typo in my previous post - should say "as I'll use other words".

professional bodies need to sort this out
Well again, you won't find anyone disagreeing with you on that op.

So far from your posts I gather that you think a moderate view or halfway would be

Facilities and services to meet all needs
Sports sex segregated
Everyone uses the faculties they are comfortable with

The first two are views that have been expressed numerous times on this thread alone.

The last is incompatible with the first two.

I imagine the 'doe eyed' comment was prompted by your patronising tone and assumption that you have all the answers, despite being unable to articulate your view.

And that's not an education dig btw. I find the most coherent posters on here tend to be the most down to earth, who use simple language for direct ideas.

I didn't ever say "doe-eyed". I assume you're confusing me with another poster. I'm the one whose first post in this thread was saying I consider myself to be a middle-ground opinion-haver...

And I honestly don't know why you think I'm assuming bad faith - out of all posters on here I'm usually the one to give people benefitof the doubt. I'm genuinely interested as to what I've said that made you think this, as you use other words.

As for picking apart - isn't that the point of all this? No point just talking in vague general terms - doesn't get anywhere.

@Baggingarea what about women's prisons? Where would you draw the line (if it were in you power to do so). No male born people at all to be housed in womens prisons? TW who have had bottom surgery (i.e. have no penis) can be housed in female prisons but no other male born people? TW on hormone treatment as long as it rendered them impotent? TW on hormones regardless of their sexual function? Any male born person who "lives as a woman" for a few years prior to arrest? Any male born person who identifies as female after their arrest? Any man who asks that has committed non violent/non sexual crimes? Any gay man? Any smaller than average man who identifies as trans? Any man who asks to be moved to the female estate? There is acres of middle ground there between never and always so where would you propose the right balance would be?

[quote Baggingarea]@PrelateChuckles it was the “doe-eyed” comment. So patronising.[/quote]
Sorry, i don't know what you mean- could you please quote what you're talking about?

Sorry if it appears that way @Baggingarea - it's the way i type, it's genuinely all meant well although i do feel some frustration which obviously comes across.

Thanks for actually being honest though (not sarky) - the ignoring is a general sign of trolls so you've done yourself a small favour by actually putting it out there!

I do think text isn't the best way of communicating sometimes, as clearly a tone has been inferred where in my case it's not intended.

Here's a reply from a SNP Councillor in response to an invitation to a public meeting to discuss women's rights in Motherwell -

'Good afternoon,

I am delighted to advise that I will not be attending your meeting where you state you will discuss Gender Recognition reform but do not advertise any transgender speakers, just as I would not attend a meeting about disabled issues where none of the invited speakers had lived experience of disability.

As Gender Recognition reform is a matter for UK and Scottish Parliament legislation in which local councils have no locus, I can only assume that the purpose of your email is to identify those who support trans rights and add them to one of your wee lists – Hi!

You know very well that the proposed reforms to the GRA do not offer new rights to trans people nor do they remove rights from any women. “The potential effect on children and young people from the proposed gender recognition reform” is very emotive isn’t it? Especially when you consider that the proposed legislation does not include any changes to the rights of children.

You do not speak for me. I support the rights of all women.

To be clear, please feel free to add me to your so-called ‘women’s rights campaign’s’ list of women candidates that you intend to encourage your ‘gender critical’ associates not to vote for in the council elections.

Wishing you the day you deserve

Councillor Janine Calikes (She/her)'

This is an elected representative.

Usually it's me so 🤷‍♀️

As you were.

Have you actually tried articulating your views in the ways I've suggested in this thread? Are you able to defend them or do you avoid and ignore questions you don't know how to answer? (This is a common tactic - pretending one is participating in good faith but ignoring key questions.)

It's fine to say you don't know or aren't sure where exactly you'd draw a line. That's to be explored. Just ignoring, or changing topic to post about what one thinks FWR posters are like, isn't engaging in good faith.

I'd further add that the reason this appalling outrage on female equality in the UK has got as far as it has is that female people in general have been much, much too understanding, too willing to compromise, too generous, too patient, too willing to believe the best of people, too hopeful and too bloody kind.

We have enabled this to happen by lack of basic good boundaries. This is most certainly the point to stand up and be very clear not to fuck any further with women or their rights.

Also rather curious as to why the OP uses the misogynistic and abusive term "bimbo". Does seem like a "bad faith" term to use.

I don't understand where you're getting the "bimbo" thing from, op? You're the first person to use the word in this thread.

Generally it's good practice to respond directly to posts made and quote them, using either the quote function or bolding the text, so people don't have to go searching to see the context you're talking about. It also avoids misrepresenting others' views (so much).

I assume this will get ignored, too, though...

is it realistic to think we can ever get our rights back?

What is the alternative?

Giving up and going along with female people with inconvenient needs that used to be protected just being excluded from society, shunned, without accessible health care or rape crisis care or refuge from dangerous relationships? Having a two tier society that includes Untouchables that have to pay the same tax but pay it for other people to have things denied to them?

A society in which female people's safety, needs, reality comes second to the freedom of self expression of male people? And where any male person is entitled to use female people and their spaces as resources to meet their own needs with, regardless of impact? For females to be a kind of lower status group in law to males?

Would you mind if your right to vote went next or would you say we all just need to realistically accept that and know our places too? Your right not be raped by your husband? Your right to own property? Which rights are your red line? You're probably going to need to know, because you would be nuts to think that this agenda has all it wants now and this is as much as it will try to take from women.

And are you ok with BAME rights being rolled back? Disabled rights? Children's rights? Animal rights? Whose rights are disposable once a fashionable group makes sufficient noise and we're stuck in a rotten decade with politicians lacking a single grownup or principle anywhere amongst them?

This is not a world I'm willing to live in. Or to hand on to the girls growing up in this mess.

Sky News interviewed a transwoman Joanna Harper this morning. JH is a researcher at Loughborough university, studying transgender athletes. JH also served on the IOC (international Olympic committee) advising on the inclusion of transwomen in women’s sports.

In the interview, JH discussed Lia Thomas’ participation in the NCAA races. As LT had won and lost some races since identifying as a transwoman, JH said something along the lines that LT is therefore able to engage in meaningful competition. I didn’t record that bit, but the following is being transmitted pretty much every hour:
“Testosterone is the single most important factor that differentiates male athletes from female athletes. So no, if somebody has much higher testosterone than typical female values they shouldn’t be allowed to be in a women’s division. The trickier question is what to do with transwomen who used to have high testosterone but now have testosterone in the female range. I personally think in most instances transwomen, who have suppressed their testosterone can engage in meaningful competition with other women, but that is not a proven thing yet and there is much research and discussion that needs to take place.”

I have read on here many times that there are differences that cannot be overcome by reducing testosterone. The Guardian, traditionally very pro trans backed this up and published an article stating transwomen have a 12% advantage 2 years after transitioning. www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

Where’s the balance in the Sky news broadcast? And if there is no balance, how can there be anything in the middle?

is it realistic to think we can ever get our rights back?
Certainly not if Labour or any other pro self I'd parties get in, but at the moment there is very little law in England (real law not Stonewall law) that backs up any of the batshit stuff that's been happening.

That's been down to individual captured institutions and their wilful application of the law. If this is tackled, and I do believe it will come to a head soon, with detransioners and key safeguarding cases highlighting it, rowing back will be a fairly simple task of just following and applying the actual law.

I mean, realistically, yes it is bleak as it is a fairly powerful group (men) against women. But we have to try so we can look future women in the face.

The other thing that I struggle with is what do people here really think will happen in the end?
Considering trans people are in fact using the spaces of the opposite sex, and most of us here want TW out of ours, is it realistic to think we will succeed? We can argue for it all we like, and I think we absolutely have the argument for it to happen, more places across the world are bringing in self id, is it realistic to think we can ever get our rights back?

The suffragettes did not give up or lose hope so I try and stay positive and think that we may be able to regain some female rights in the future. This whole debacle has shown just how much entrenched male privilege exists and how threatening it is to disagree with what men think should happen. That itself is scary.

I suppose I can understand some of what op is saying. I am not on Twitter really anymore but I was for a while and I definitely saw a fair few women who were encouraging each other to "report" some TRAS to their bosses, it was often regarding what that person had said in a reply tweet, this felt to me very similar to what the TRAs do to women and in some cases possibly justified but in others not so much.

I have without doubt seem a fair few (GC) women being incredibly rude/nasty/unpleasant to trans people, not just factual ie TW are men, but talking about them being a plastic Barbie, getting personal about their appearance, 5 o'clock shadow. I don't see any need to get so personal.

So I can see the insults etc.. on both sides, but when you look at both sides they aren't really comparable as one is being rude, the other is threatening death and rape threats.

I do have an issue with only having toilets by biological sex because there are TM that look male and in some cases (although rarer) there are TW who could pass as female. Whilst the view when presented with the question of TM in women's toilet's is usually answered with "well they're female so they are welcome" in reality if I came face to face with some TM I would feel very uncomfortable because to me they look male. Third spaces is the only answer and we know how that suggestion has gone down, so if third spaces won't be accepted what's the answer?

The other thing that I struggle with is what do people here really think will happen in the end?
Considering trans people are in fact using the spaces of the opposite sex, and most of us here want TW out of ours, is it realistic to think we will succeed? We can argue for it all we like, and I think we absolutely have the argument for it to happen, more places across the world are bringing in self id, is it realistic to think we can ever get our rights back?

*Dr Rachel Ruysch asks a question that she said would not get answered. And it didn't.

I can name 1000 things shared by most women and no trans women…the notion that something must be shared by all cis women is a STRAW MAN& misunderstands the notion of categories! You name just 1 thing trans women are more likely than other males to have in common with females.*

I can answer this succinctly if it helps? Jack. Shit.