‘Identifying as a woman’ is self-defeating, so instead this leads to...

Yes I know it’s a form of body dysphoria. That’s very different from thousands of people choosing to self-ID and imposing themselves on services, financial groups or spaces for disabled people, or appropriating financial benefits simply ‘cos feelz.

@ClaphamSouth your archive post has been restored. I can't open it but that's probably because my tablet is over protective.

I think there were some posts about a Norwegian tw who also identifies as paralysed or a wheelchair user, when it suits him. I think he's married. His poor wife.

Disabled Self-ID is already nascent. Being trans-disabled is a thing - it's a form of body dysphoria.

That is a very excellent way to put it

Ok, so why is that any different from sex? Why have you reacted more to race than to s3x. It’s still all hard coded genetically and still involves 2 protect3d characteristics

And is the school saying "we won't put these children in with actual boys FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY"????

As Datun said on another thread "It's utilisation of the women, not the room."

It's us they want to use.

What do you mean? Lesbians don't do dick?

The irony.

Interesting to compare this also to some responses to third space options where women willing and able to, would be available to share a mixed sex provision.

This will never do. The desired goal always remains the female only group who do not consent and cannot use mixed sex provisions.

So it's not about wanting to use the toilets that match their gender identity then? (If it were, the only people in there would be the two trans "women" and any women who identify as "cis".)

It's about you alone being allowed into a space which is supposed to be for women only, and forcing women to be in there with you (like non playable characters in the Sims game of your life).

Because if there are no women in there, it's not a women's toilet. It's just a toilet, which is no fun at all.

Nope autobinned

Atlantic article link

A New Way to Be Mad, by Carl Elliott, December 2000

archive.is/M0MLu

Oh. John Money's name crops up again in that. I found the article had been archived on archive dot is. Are we allowed to link? I'll do a link in a separate post.

There was a Reddit post (I think) going round a while ago by a lesbian who, with the best intentions, had set up two of her male lesbian-identifying friends & not mentioned to either of them that the other was trans. Because TWAW.

She couldn’t understand why they were both furious with her.

Actually Race self ID is a lot LESS ridiculous than sex self ID, as races are not clear cut biological categories. 'Race' genuinely IS a spectrum.

Skin colour and features are controlled by multiple genes that don't neatly fall together into distinct 'racial' patterns of inheritance. If Meghan Markle is black, why can't anyone else with the exact same colouring be black?

If it's about culture/oppression/discrimination/'lived experience', does my friend, 100% African genes, brought up in an extremely wealthy family in Nigeria, really have something significant in common with a descendant of African slaves living in poverty in the US?

I agree, self ID is ridiculous. You’re either something or you’re not - race, sex, nationality, colour, disabled/abled, age, and so on. Believing something is true does not make it so - expecting others to pretend your belief is real does not make it so either.

The whole ideology implodes under any kind of scrutiny. It demands that everyone else holds boundaries in place just enough so that they can subvert them.

I don't agree with self identification in either space. But trying to argue one must be possible because people are trying to do so in the other poor, especially if you are not part of that race.

This was always and obviously there on the horizon for anyone who thought for a minute, as I've tried to point out to my MP.

If you can choose your preferred reality for sex on official documents then that's the precedent. How do you argue that one characteristic can be choice and not fact, but other characteristics can't? How can you enforce that self identified access to resources comes over and above the impact on the actual intended, objectively identifiable group without causing an absolute shit show?

Stand by for the 50 year old who is attending their local nursery and has managed to enforce staff changing their nappies (for some reason I strongly suspect this ground breaker will be a biologically male person)

and the issue with when self identified disabled people want wheelchair enabled cars, carers, stair lifts and benefits all paid for by the local authority, which will make the budget for disability care untenable, and will end with everyone losing access to those things.

I was thinking of a few years ago when people were self diagnosing as being gluten/lactose/whatever intolerant/allergic. Which must have been a pain for anyone trying to cater for them. It had an upside though of massively widening the choice of suitable foods for genuine sufferers. The improvements in food labelling and awareness will also have been brilliant for those with genuine needs, possibly sometimes lifesaving.

I'd like to think that this latest fashion would also help to improve provision for people with genuine needs. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that what limited provision there already is will be swamped by people with no real need for it. Perhaps with a side order of an increase in skepticism as to whether or not you are actually a sufferer.

There is no logic or consistency anywhere in this field of beliefs. It's like sex doesn't exist or matter and can't be recognised, until it negatively affects a TQ+ person.

Eventually you realise the only consistent belief being followed is 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

Of course! 😂 It’s all so daft because no-one actually believes in it, even if they say they do.

At my work (university) we now have events for “AFAB non-binary” and “AMAB non-binary” people and not a single student even seems to register the hilarious nonsense of that 🤣🤣🤣

Ooh @Shelefttheweb please share the tweet!

@Socrateswasrightaboutvoting I totally agree with you, but it is a thing.

You cannot self ID as an ethnic group you are not part of. It is entitled privilege at its finest. You cannot just decide to be Korean or African American - if you are referencing RD.

yup. And similarly you can’t self ID as a sex you are not part of… but somehow that is fine but race is not? Why? Surely a male identifying as a female is also entitled privilege at its finest?