Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

Maybe the TA who volunteers to answer questions above could do so on a thread they start themselves? It's probably only fair, to avoid this thread being me-railed and obviously, to give them a clear platform of their own.

‘And if you have questions you’d like to ask of a ‘trans rights activist’ who is open to discussion, please feel free to fire away :)’

Can I ask some, please?

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?

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?

It's very healthy to be undecided! I have swithered for a long time with a sense that both sides are arguing past each other, ignoring each other's strongest and most important points. So whichever side I listened to I found myself agreeing with the other side more! Both sides have intense ideology and very appealing rhetoric.

I have gradually shifted towards one side because the facts and the evidence (at least the ones I know about so far!) go that particular way.

And I think it is really important to look beyond the rhetoric. To take one example, one interesting question the Scottish Equalities and Human Rights committee asked (and which was poorly answered by the guy from LGBA) was "doesn't what you are saying about young people sound very like Section 28?" My own answer would be, yes the rhetoric is similar and that's partly why the TRA side has so much traction. When adults are caring and concerned, nobody wants to be That Person arguing against the rights of young people to live their lives openly as whatever they are. But that's just the rhetoric. The evidence and the facts about young gay people in the 1980-90s and young trans people now are very different.

I was in my 30s in the 1990s. Yes, being gay or bi was seen as a bit "cool" in the media back then but there was never any evidence that very many more unhappy children were becoming gay or bisexual as a result. Whereas there is evidence now of social contagion online driving some girls (in particular) towards medical gender transition. And another fact is there is no direct physical harm caused by living life as a lesbian whereas there is permanent physical damage caused by medical gender transition.

So, the rhetoric may sound the same but the facts are very different.

And it's very OK to be undecided when we don't (maybe can't!) know the facts.

I think it’s a really sensible and healthy approach - too much certainty is a dangerous thing.

And if you have questions you’d like to ask of a ‘trans rights activist’ who is open to discussion, please feel free to fire away :)

Yes, however, in the wake of the Amber Heard trial, the soaring 'epidemic' of dv and the child grooming gangs, as well as Caroline Criado-Perez' latest newsletter I'm increasingly thinking that 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.

The genderist lobby didn't invent misogyny, they've just made good use of it to further their cause.

I would add though that public sympathy for things like TW having access to (all) women's refuges without any being permitted to remain single sex, and TW accessing female only toilets is largely based on the general public having received a huge amount of emotive and sympathetic anecdotes and public faces on behalf of the TW's feelings and needs.

The TQ+ political lobby has rather prevented the general public hearing equal voices and emotive anecdotes or even being aware of the disabled women, women of other faiths and cultures, women who are survivors of CSA/DV/DA and who have PTSD, being excluded from any facilities at all so that male people may take their preferred choice from all the facilities available.

The general public have not been ever permitted fair, informed decisions on all this, and the messaging has been very, very controlled in order to steer them to a pre decided and preferred outcome. As far as possible female needs and voices and issues are silenced, and where necessary derided and dismissed and monstered to continue controlling a narrative.

You're on a journey, OP, that many of us have been on. Some of us travel it faster than others, particularly those of us innoculated by second wave feminism, who have a head start in seeing the inconsistencies and misogyny inherent in gender ideology.

Even so, other people's moral certainty/purity on this issue is discombobulating, and so many of us take an ever deeper dive into seeing what, exactly, is underpinning their stance. The more you learn, the more you see the emperor is not only wearing no clothes, he's taking a dump on women's rights while people cheer him on. It's natural for your views to evolve over time, especially as there are a lot of complexities in gender ideology that are hidden from the people who do not wish to see.

I can't answer whether it's "OK" or not to think in the way that OP describes, but the available evidence shows that many people are (see below). An obvious example would appear to be that:

(a) In the UK there's near-universal opposition (outside of a few extremists) to TW in women's sport; but
(b) There's [surprisingly to me, I must admit] overall quite strong sympathy towards TW who have themselves been victims using women's refuges.

These sorts of discrepancies are only possible if at least some people are picking and choosing their issues.

A different type of nuance is that people are overall far more supportive of access for trans people who've had reassignment surgery than they are of trans people who haven't. Though this finding is of course slightly problematic since it's very hard to tell whether someone's already surgery or not just by looking at them; the discrepancy also points towards considerable public ignorance regarding just how few TW have undergone surgery.

Which is really what 'transphobic dog whistle' means. In essence: "You are opening the floor to permit those to speak who may say things other than what I want you to hear, and I am afraid of you hearing them because its a threat to my control. Stop it at once."

Obvious questions around this get called transphobic dog whistles no matter how genuine the question.

The crux of the issue is that "one side" refuses to debate issues and safeguarding effectively and thats all other "side" wants to do.

It's become an issue purely because of this.

Of course this board will say it's absolutely ok to be undecided (my opinion too.) we are keen to discuss all the ins and outs.

I was a little on the fence for a while though had clear ideas around children and biology as I teach young children and those with Sen/ autism and understand biological science. (So could see the safety issues) I could also understand the pressures of dysphoria as I suffered from extreme body dysmorphia around my face. I also read a lot about perception and aesthetics for my degree so understand a bit about psychology of perception. I had experience of religious extremism (Christian - 'friends' kept trying to convert me. I'm immune!)

We all come at this from different backgrounds and see things very differently. It actually takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make sense it lots of it as gender stereotypes are so ingrained in society and "neurotrash science" is very common in the media.

@Veryverycalmnow

Ask questions of GC people and see how compassionate and logical and reasonable their answers are.

It seems that you have already tried asking questions of trans activists and they have shut you down. Do not be surprised.

The only thing that you can really do is ask questions of trans activists like "obviously I support trans rights completely, but I'd love to understand the issues more so that I can refute TERFs when they are causing literal violence by referring to someone's biological sex - can you point me to some of the best essays, articles and videos that explain the position really well so that I can easily win any debate?"

If you find yourself utterly astonished at how there is NOTHING out there to support the TRA position I will not be surprised. You might then conclude that the GC position is probably more reasonable.

Just thinking or asking questions will get you branded a bigot or a terf by one group of activists.
You don't have to give those words any value. They're utterly meaningless. Like overdiluted ribera, there's no flavour or colour, it's just a nebulous fart, designed to shut women up.
Ask questions, enquire, work out the consequences of different actions and then decide if you can live with those consequences. If you can, remember that doesn't give you the right to force other females to do the same.

But mumsnet does allow debate, and people often debate different points of view on here which I’ve found very helpful. Also there’s a lot of debate on Twitter, I just can’t join in because I’d risk my career, but I can read all the arguments.

No, you must absolutely obey group think or the mob will come round and nail rats to your.... hang on a minute, no, that's another group. Wink

Aye, let's not do any rat-nailing, that's really pretty horrible.

I got labelled as a TERF as soon as I asked questions

OP, that sounds familir. If people refuse to use certain words, or even think certain thoughts, it makes me want to know what's actually going on. And if we're not allowed to ask questions it makes me ask more, louder. This is why I often get asked to leave at funerals.

I think this topic/debate is both simple and complicated. There’s a simple reality at its heart but the ways in which it affects and appeals to people, the many ramifications and the philosophical arguments about the body and self can become complicated - it’s partly the complexity of a lot of sophistry and bullshitting that has to be unpicked, but it can become a big tangle.

No, you must absolutely obey group think or the mob will come round and nail rats to your.... hang on a minute, no, that's another group.

It's excellent that you're undecided. It means you're thinking, working out the evidence for yourself, reaching your own conclusions in your own time, not just rushing to what someone else tells you to think, thinking critically about every source regardless of who wrote it and what their affiliations might be, and not believing anything until you reach the point of your own conviction. Bravo. All for it.

I’d add that although of course you feel however you feel, I don’t think it’s complicated. There are people who like to say ‘nuance’ and ‘very complex’ a lot, but it’s sometimes because they want to confuse you about something that isn’t actually that complicated when you ask honest questions of it.

Just be aware that the TRA are the side pushing no debate

Yes it’s true that just by being willing to debate, think, and consider logic and evidence - whatever you conclude - you will be considered a bigot/fascist by the extreme TRA faction, because debate is in itself not allowed from their POV. I learned this early on on Twitter when I got drawn into a discussion about brain scans showing “gendered” brains and pointed out flaws in the conclusion - purely from a science method angle, not meaning to be political - and was jumped on for debating. Any purported evidence must be immediately believed and co-opted even if it doesn’t hold water or make sense. That really scared me.

I think it is a good thing to feel challenged in your own position - it gives you the chance to re-examine why you hold the views you do and to change them if you discover something that alters what you think about any particular issue.

I went from 'be kind' before I knew much to 'absolutely no compromise' once I'd started looking into the debate to my current position, which is somewhere between the two.

It's definitely ok but it's also quite difficult. My views fluctuate, I can be sure of something one week and questioning it again next week.

Just be aware that the TRA are the side pushing no debate (because their arguments are either crap or non-existent) and are prone to outbursts of toy throwing if challenged.

Of course its ok to be undecided. Its also ok to discuss and debate.
I don't think anyone here is against mixed sex bathrooms; I think its more a case of we are against them replacing single sex bathrooms.