Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

I believe (obviously) that there are social roles that many women fulfil. Not every aspect of that is a ‘stereotype’ per se, although it gives rise to powerful and damaging stereotypes. But there’s also such a thing as more typical female behaviour. That emphatically does not mean that anyone who behaves in those more typically female ways is a woman, or that anyone who does not is a man. That is fallacious reasoning and only serves to enforce a stereotyped idea of what a woman ‘should’ be.

The "social" meaning of the word is usually taken to mean a mix of stereotypes that many women find offensive and have been fighting against for years. These include ideas that women are better suited to domestic work, being passive, being submissive and even extreme sexual stereotypes (often pushed by some TRAs). Accepting a social meaning of woman is disastrous for women as a whole. It is also ridiculous as a definition as the only trait that really unites women across all societies and at all times is that we are female.

I have in the past taken part in pro choice protests outside abortion clinics,

Please consider the women using these clinics are often going through a difficult experience. The last thing they need is people exercising the right to protest, even if you are permitted legally to do so. A compassionate and considerate response would put the wellbeing of women above your desire to make noise and express your feelings.

I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context

What is the 'social' meaning of the word 'woman'? I have never properly understood this.

@NancyDrawed

coming back to your questions

I would like to know why women talking about things that matter to them and discussing women's rights get shouted down /drowned out/have their meetings disrupted by those on 'the other side'? Surely if you are secure in your position you should want everyone to hear the other side's view?

Do you mean why do women get shut down in general when talking about things that matter to them (us)? Or why have people who advance ‘gender critical’ views (many of whom are women) been the target of criticism, protests etc? If the latter, it’s generally because the people in question have expressed views which the people criticising/protesting at them found deeply offensive. I’m not saying that in all these cases the criticism or protests have been conducted appropriately. But I do think in general that we should be able to strongly criticise and protest against the expression of views that we believe are harmful. For example, I have in the past taken part in pro choice protests outside abortion clinics, for instance there was a religious group staging a ‘silent vigil’ outside a clinic, holding up pictures of foetuses etc, so a group of us turned up to make as much noise as we could, and vocally support women’s right to choose. They were exercising their right to express views that I disagree with profoundly, and we were exercising our right to express our disagreement.

And also, what rights are you after - as a trans rights activist? What rights do people who are trans not have that everyone else does?

I should say that I only used the phrase ‘trans rights activist’ as a shorthand to explain my overall position, I wouldn’t generally describe myself in that way. It’s not a matter of fighting for formal rights (just as it isn’t these days in the UK for women or queer people) - we are all equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of sex, sexuality, gender. It’s about fighting against prejudice and stigma, and for acceptance and understanding.

I would say it’s some women, not all women, who feel that way. I have one good friend who is very concerned by the possible ‘erasure’ of women as a result of trans inclusive language, and we have had a number of long and heated debates about it. Most of my other cis gender female friends either don’t have strong feelings about it, or like me are supportive of trans inclusion.

As to whether I recognise why some women do feel that using trans inclusive language will undermine their identity as women, I’m not sure I do. I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context. So it is possible to meaningfully day ‘trans women are women’ while also acknowledging that trans woman have some important biological differences from cis gender women (and from trans men and non binary people who were recorded female at birth); and that they are unlikely to have experienced society in the same way as those who have always been perceived as female by others. But then I also believe that the life experiences of cis gender women (and other people recorded female at birth) vary massively - there isn’t one monolithic ‘female experience’.

A lot of the focus in this debate is on trans women, but for me it’s as much about referring to trans men respectfully and in a way that they feel comfortable with - if a person tells me that they don’t regard themselves as a woman, and feel uncomfortable being referred to as such, I’m not going to take it on myself to contradict them.

Oh! And if ever there was to be real evidence that human beings could change sex under specific circumstances one of two things would happen:

The majority of TRAs would mis it because it would be very complex. Quite a few posters here would be able to explain it though and soon enough most GC posters would understand it.

The bit that was understood would be bastardised and used to prove all sorts of unrelated schlock, lots of "Told you so's" etc. And STILL they wouldn't understand and would blatantly lie to prove their point, over and over again.

But that hasn't happened. We have no reason to believe that it ever will. So it is reasonable to say "Human beings cannot change sex" and to know you are right!

You can't prove the non existence of something. That even has its own theory - Black Swan.

So we know that no human being can change sex.

We know that the science this is based on is upheld not lessened by the newer data about DSDs

We know that what TRAs are calling changing sex is nothing of the sort.

The whole debate goes something like

"I have changed sex"
"No you have not, that is impossible"
"But I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it"
"Tough!"

All the rest of that, the political and scientific debate isn't all that deep. It doesn't have to be. It isn't 'complicated' as so many nervous politicians have said. Men are men, women are women. That is science, biology, immutable/

Feminine and masculine? Whole different kettle of fish and could be debated until the cows come home (all female, obviously)

The main thing on this topic which isn't even a bit debatable is whether people can change sex. They definitely can't.

They can't according to current scientific understanding, but nothing in science is undebatable. I think we should debate things like this and argue for them on the basis of the evidence, because that contrasts with an argument against that has no evidence supporting it.

It's like the common TRA "outraged and indignant" response that they "won't debate my existence!" Why not? I will. I'm happy to argue that I materially exist and exist as a member of the sex class woman, on the basis of material evidence, and to have that debate with someone who thinks the "gender identity" of "woman" exists and makes a male a woman - because I don't think they have evidence for that and the debate will show them up. Or, if they do have good evidence and arguments, I'll listen to them and change my view.

@aseriesofstillimages - fair enough, I have no wish to derail ververycalmnow's thread and understand your reluctance to start an AMA.

I'll just have to hope the OP wants to know the answers to my questions and asks for themselves!

Questioning things is good. Discussing things is good. There are things that are debatable and things that aren't though imo. The main thing on this topic which isn't even a bit debatable is whether people can change sex. They definitely can't.

And there are two other things to remember when reading here.

Most posters are not necessarily talking about "ordinary trans people". But we are ALL talking about transactivists, TRAs, and organisations like Stonewall, who lobby against women's rights, actively harrass, hound from jobs, seek court cases against some women, prevent when from meeting to discuss women's issues etc.

And we have a specific set of T+C's here. They constrain how we discuss some issues. So some discussions sound really stilted. Much like the segregation of the feminist forum we, the regular users, did not ask for this and are daily discomfited by it. So if something sounds odd do ask and someone will try to explain.

You are not exactly specific about what you agree with or disagree with - 'certain things' could be anything. What are some of the things that you agree with 'both' sides on - although I don't agree there are only 'both' sides.
On the subject of single--sex facilities I consider them essential for women and a civilised arrangement that works well for the comfort and convenience of both women and men. What some activists, official and commercial organisations want is mixed sex not 'gender neutral' and it is important not to let it be put across as some sort of unthreatening notion such as neutral. It is dangerous and unacceptable for women and girls. What was put across by headteachers as 'gender neutral' school uniforms often turned out to be no such thing but a prohibition on girls wearing skirts or traditional girls' clothing.
It is up to you to decide what you think and what you want as to single or mixed facilities.

There are things I disagree with people on here about, often about terminology and use of language but that's the nature of opinions and positions often passionately held and it doesn't mean that I take to the keyboard or take issue necessarily when I see something stated or that it changes my own position or perception, although that can sometimes happen too.

I guess some of the top of the list questions for me would include:

• What are we going to do with the females who are excluded from any provision so that female only spaces can include male people? Inclusion should include them too. Intersectionality should recognise their vulnerabilities and intersecting needs, which include a need for female only spaces.

• What are we going to do with homosexual people? Particularly those who wish to be out and proud and homosexual and to be free to express this as they have always done until very recently, without coercion to change to fit other people's desires?

• Why can we not look for diversity of solutions and have a range that work for everyone instead of this having to involve losers? How is this going to end anywhere positive for anyone or be sustainable? How does this create good feeling between groups instead of set up bad feeling, resentment and entrenched separation?

• Where is the reciprocal kindness please?

There’s an interesting thread on this subject here:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4563609-what-made-you-change-your-mind?reply=117718608

I hadn't any view on this topic until I stumbled across it.

It was pretty easy to make up my mind. The feminist side were presenting coherent arguments based data and information and just common sense based on known patterns of male offending behaviour. The other side weren't addressing these arguments, often lied about what the feminists arguments were andt largely weren't saying much other than 'hater!' 'transphobe' 'no debate!'.

And the more this has gone on, the more predictions made by feminists are coming true. And that's how science works isn't it? You have an hypothesis, make a prediction, do the experiment. If your experiment gets a positive result your theory is strengthened.

I would be prepared to re-examine my views, but the other side are not really saying anything to convince me.

Your problem is that most of us are open minded, just require logic and coherence, and, yes, we would have a lot of questions.

Maybe @Veryverycalmnow will ask you some and we can all have a read as she does!

@NancyDrawed I’ll wait to respond until OP has said if she objects to me derailing

@tabbycatstripy i don’t mind, but only if the OP doesn’t object to her thread being de-railed

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist and @Belovedfool
i’m reluctant to start a thread, which would inevitably mean I’d have to put in an awful lot of time responding to questions (many of which would, I imagine, come from people who are already entirely set in their views). I was more directing my offer specifically to the OP, as someone who seems genuinely open minded on this topic, and who said that her attempts to discuss with other people on the pro-trans side had not been successful.

Hi @aseriesofstillimages

Could you start a thread like the IAMA ones? Save derailing @Veryverycalmnows thread and be a very, very welcome addition to FWR.

the general public are more than happy to ignore women in distress to focus on the far more interesting, important, and sympathy-arousing issue of males in distress.

Oh totally this ^^

The ingrained unconscious misogyny both the active and the internalised is off the scale in the UK and embedded in our institutions.

A helpful book in my view is The Transgender Issue; an argument for justice by Shon Faye. I didn't stop having GC views after reading it but it reminded me of some important things and I'm glad I read it. I'm still only halfway through Whipping Girl by Julia Serano which is incredibly off-putting so it can be quite individual what strikes a chord.