Believing in gender is a bit like believing in God

And then they scream we are denying their existence🙄

@GailBlancheViola Quite, but this one seems especially illogical 😂

There's no logic to it whatsoever.

There is no logic to any of their arguments/demands.

This is what gets me. If transwomen are women, then transwomen don't exist.

There's no logic to it whatsoever.

Yes, Anne's arrogance has quite wrong-footed Anne on this occasion, hasn't it?

This attempt to shame the Mercure for its entirely reasonable stance has backfired fairly spectacularly, bringing Anne's other blogs and 'determination' to violate women's and girls' spaces under a lot of media scrutiny.

Good going, Anne (slow hand clap).

Yes, those posters who would treat 'Anne' as a woman in day to day life (why? because of the skirt?) how do you propose saying Anne cannot use the women's changing room or walk through the changing area (which is was totally unnecessary to do) when young girls are changing?

Come on let's hear your failsafe idea for protecting women and girls spaces whilst treating 'Anne' as a woman in day to day life. Also please explain how one treats someone as a woman - is it talking over them, dismissing their ideas, thoughts, opinions and feelings perhaps?

"Anne" is a woman, and therefore it's perfectly fine that Anne uses the women's changing room as a walkthrough when underage girls are changing.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12350741/Parents-raised-concerns-transgender-pool-official-using-womens-changing-room-time-young-girls.html

Funny how they bugger off when asked for details of how they think TWAW except when they are not would work. Their stance is as illogical as the whole of Gender ideology, but hey they want to look as if they are kind and concerned to both sides.

I'm very much trans women are women when it comes to day to day life.

But that literally means you think any man who at any time declares himself to be a woman, is one, for all practical purposes. Regardless of the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Is that really what you believe, because it's a bit odd? Or do you have some sort of gatekeeping.

Yes, I think there needs to be a response along the lines, "trans activists are making crazy false claims about identity, to then demand "rights" off the back of the false identity claims".

If they can't defend the original claim about identity, then you shouldn't be trusting their claims about "trans rights".

Exactly.

Transwomen are not women that underpins the whole argument, they are male, they are transwomen, they are not and never will be women.

This. They are not women, there is zero reason to believe that any man who says "I'm a woman" actually is one for practical purposes.

Indeed!

Also just to add re my cross wearing/pronoun translation. I don't put pronouns next to my name and I never will. Technically that would be what is meant by me wearing a cross to fit the analogy properly. Instead I used it to illustrate that I'll use someone's preferred pronouns in certain situations (never a child, never when it's important.to clarify something).
I call our local vicar Reverend [insert first name]. Everyone does in our village. I choose to do so to show a respect for her religion even though I don't share it. It's the mandating of a belief that is wrong, whether that's religion or gender identity.

Perhaps also...

"Punch an atheist"

Such an interesting and thought inspiring notion. I’ve never really thought about gender being something I can have a choice about but religion I can. I respect any choice someone makes about their beliefs although I don’t believe the same however I don’t feel the same way about gender identity. Maybe I need to adjust my perspective but I feel that it is my choice to choose my beliefs based upon what I see

Very well written. I had to go back and read through it all several times to take it all in.

Personal favourite:
Everyone should wear a cross in order to be kind and inclusive

I'm comfortable with my position on pronouns and I know it's very different to many other people on this board...

If I translate my position back to your example it becomes this:

I have chosen to wear a cross of my own free will to make you feel more comfortable in our conversation. Something seems to have got lost in translation here because now I'm being told by my work that I need to wear a cross at all times because if I don't I'm making Christians feel invalid. I'm still going to wear my cross when I'm talking to you to make our conversation flow more easily for you because I can see you're quite fragile and are going to take it really personally* if I don't but I'll be taking it off the rest of the time. There is no way I'm wearing it as part of some msndated rule, sod that. And if it's really really important when I'm talking about you, e.g. you have used your cross to enter an event that you shouldn't, I'll be making it very clear that the only reason I was wearing a cross in the first place was to be kind and that I never believed in any of it.

*Obviously this is one of the places where the analogy differs significantly. No real Christian needs my affirmation to make their faith "valid", as per comments above. Even though it had to be bent to fit, it's still works for the purposes of illustration.

Let’s translate some common trans activist claims into this analogy:

Atheism isn’t a belief system worthy of respect, it’s merely anti-Christian hatred.

Expressing atheist views is hate speech and deeply hurtful to Christians.

It’s wrong to platform atheists. Their views are not worthy of respect in a civilised society.

Everyone should wear a cross in order to be kind and inclusive.

Atheism is ignoring the lived experience of Christians.

Atheists don’t believe that Christians exist.

Atheists want to eliminate Christians.

Let’s call atheists what they really are, “anti-Christian bigots”.

Christian allies need to condemn atheism whenever they see or hear it. Staying silent is not OK.

"And what is the answer they/we are/were getting but transwomen are womenon repeat. I ask again how areyousuggesting we can exclude transwomen from single sex women only spaces and services whilst simultaneously saying that transwomen are women? The second you concede on that fundamental lie is the second you cannot exclude transwomen from anything relating to women."

Yes, I think there needs to be a response along the lines, "trans activists are making crazy false claims about identity, to then demand "rights" off the back of the false identity claims".

If they can't defend the original claim about identity, then you shouldn't be trusting their claims about "trans rights".

Yes, I guess it would get interesting if those that did believe that the wine had literally become the blood of Christ then insisted it was given to toddlers because it was no longer alcoholic.
At some point, someone would take the transubstantiation believer aside and either a) find a way to explain metaphors (while accepting that the person does still hold a belief) or b) state that not everyone shares that belief so the default approach is that, just to be cautious, no wine is given to toddlers.
By contrast, the metaphor that trans women are women is being embraced by people (e.g. "trans allies" being kind, bad apple transwomen who see an easy way in) who know it's a metaphor and passed on as true to vulnerable children and adults who end up thinking its literal. The power of belief to make something "real".

And to clarify, I'm not saying that belief in transubstantiation is an absurdity - I take that to be a sort of philosophical ritual, whereas TWAW is a statement of faith that is being used to create laws and societal rules.

Many people genuinely think that a man can 'change sex' and become a woman.

This fundamental absurdity has to be challenged.

That particular tenet is a lot like transubstantiation, I think, or it seems that way to me. A requirement to have faith in something we know and understnad to be impossible.

(I mean absolutely no disrespect to Christians, here, I'm just looking at that specific belief - and that's how I understand it - as a kind of declaration of faith. As I understand it, faith, by definition, requires belief without proof.)

Transwomen are not women that underpins the whole argument, they are male, they are transwomen, they are not and never will be women.

Personally I take it in two stages.
I say that transwomen are transwomen. If pushed on that eventually I'll say that "of course I know they are men but I'm being sensitive to the fact that they don't believe they are". Back to point the analogy still holding... As an atheist of course I believe that God doesn't exist but instead I say I don't believe in God. I'm acknowledging that someone else has a different belief to me.
But I'm not going to support any laws etc that relate to a belief. I can still challenge all of that by saying that transwomen are transwomen. They most certainly aren't women.

But focusing discussion on where there is evidence harm to women due to trans ideology might be better.

What the fuck do you think women have been doing for years? Keep Prisons Single Sex, the work done by Stephanie Davis Arai/Transgender Trend regarding schools, Karen Ingala Smith regarding domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centres, Sharron Davis and Martina Navaratilova regarding sports? We have been highlighting and pointing out the harms to women ad nauseum for years.

And what is the answer they/we are/were getting but transwomen are women on repeat. I ask again how are you suggesting we can exclude transwomen from single sex women only spaces and services whilst simultaneously saying that transwomen are women? The second you concede on that fundamental lie is the second you cannot exclude transwomen from anything relating to women.

Transwomen are not women that underpins the whole argument, they are male, they are transwomen, they are not and never will be women.

Frankly, no.

Even the judiciary, well-known for its habit of pandering to recent identity politics, largely isn't able to support them because legal precedent denies them that liberty. The law is the law, not the law according to Stonewall and its arrogant presumption of being able to rewrite that law as it sees fit.

It should be pointed out that Allison Bailey, Maya Forstater and the LGB Alliance all won their legal cases within the same week. Prior to this, Freddie McConnell was unable to overturn the essential legal precedent that 'the rights of the child shall be paramount', when attempting to get that child's birth certificate rewritten in such a way as affirms Freddie's 'identity'. No court in this land could ever have found in favour of this - imagine the Pandora's box this would open?

The law of this land is overwhelmingly of the stance that sex is a discrete category from 'gender', and that sex matters.

Labour are a worry, but even they are being forced to roll back from their fantasy stance because they know they're onto a vote loser. Whether you trust them or not is another matter, but that's the current position. No doubt they saw what happened to Nicola Sturgeon and Penny Mordaunt, and are worried.

The onus isn't on women to 'do something different' in any case. We have enough battles of our own, don't you think? We are not human shields, and we are not support vessels who exist on this planet to pander to the whims of men.

What do you think women have spent the past few years doing?!

Anyway, would be great to hear ideas for more effective and useful specific actions for women to take. Have at it!

Yes, but I believe that applies to many if not most religious people, too! We all tend to embody contradictions and misunderstandings. Human psyche is quite a muddled thing, on the whole. Maybe that's me projecting...