Believing in gender is a bit like believing in God

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't

I don't think its necessarily that simple. I think it comes down to how much the differences between women and transwomen matter. I don't think many believe that transwomen are literally the same as women but I think some people believe the differences don't matter so they should therfore be treated the same.

...since God belief collapsed. Just write none.under the box and request that 'none'' should always be an option in future.

GK Chesterton (Father Brown stories) once wrote that people who didn't believe in God would believe in anything.
Sometimes.i think that is what is happening today. People are scurrying about trying to build a belief system since

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

What does happen? Do they get sacked? Do they get punched in the face? Or do they just receive considerable challenge to their world view?

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't.

Yes. This is the heart of the matter, however people choose to dance around it.

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

I can't speak for other posters, but can answer these points on my own account. These issues have been discussed on these boards since long before the tide started to turn against gender ideology. At the time, it seemed FWR women's perspetives were lone voices in the wilderness. Serious safeguarding issues were raised here. The women who raised them were banned from the site.

Since media attention has focused more and more on the issues raised here years ago, every single concern about what this means for women and children in terms of the erosion of their rights has come to pass. Sometimes in even worse ways than anticipated. Women have been hounded out of their jobs, threatened and harassed in their own homes. We've seen what happened when we made moderate points or suggested compromise (aggression, cancellation, threats made against so-called TERFS).

This all started from a position of many people here being LGB allies, LGB themselves, and an embracing of the 'live and let live' approach.

It wasn't good enough, and it will never be good enough.

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this?

The hell I would. The more I've seen this gratuitously sexist persecution of women who dared say 'no', the more my position against the TRAs has hardened. To the point where I'm furious, and will fight them in any way I'm capable of without putting my livelihood at risk.

This is their doing. Not mine.

Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

I no longer give a shit who 'sees the light', provided our policies and law makers do, and court cases continue to be resolved in the favour of women who have been persecuted by this invidious movement.

TRAs wanted 'no debate'. As far as I'm concerned, they can have it.

https://www.tiktok.com/@alannastarby/video/7014118140959444229

I think there are a lot of people who find themselves between being GC and TRA but neither side acknowledges the existence of a middle ground

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't.

It has made things extraordinarily difficult.

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this? Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

Yes I do want to debate, and I have debated people I disagree with literally hundreds of times on here.

But you decided to sneer at what I said about the trans lobby clamming up behind the "no debate" slogan, as if it was a both sides issue, the lack of debate. It is not, as I said.

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this? Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

It's a completely silly non point, given that at no point have the gender critical side not wanted to debate any of this.

I agree with this. It has lead to further polarisation and made things worse for trans people as well as GC women who now feel they can't raise their concerns.

It is the trans side that coined "no debate" as I am sure you are aware.

But miss, he started it! 😂

Sorry, I couldn't resust.

It is the trans side that coined "no debate" as I am sure you are aware. Women have been trying to discuss these issues since the beginning of the topic entering mainstream politics.

I think it's a big problem that the belief is not allowed to be debated, in terms of whether it's reasonable to take from women to validate these people.

Would you disagree that is a core belief of TRAs, that trans "women" are women?

I would think so but in all honesty I think there's a bit of a false lumping together of people into two sides with every person within a side believing the same thing.

I think there are a lot of people who find themselves between being GC and TRA but neither side acknowledges the existence of a middle ground. It's very "you are with us or against us".

This attitude means that many people just don't engage in the subject at all because they get hostility from both sides which is one of the reasons things have been able to reach a point where we have TW winning weight lifting competitions.

I wish we did live in a secular society!

https://www.secularism.org.uk/

Remember that people often behave religiously without there being a religion involved.

It is more comparable to a fashion cult or social trend.

Seems about accurate. I would suggest astrology seems to be on a par, roughly, with genderism - a system that is open to ever increasing complexity and 'rules', based vaguely on something observable (constellations/biology) with a system of invented 'rules' overlaid (starsigns/genders).

Human group behaviour often includes cult like behaviour. Some of this is benign, some less so, but it's very very common.

Interesting, thanks @NotMyBagButCrackOn . I'd still love to hear/read her original words

@BonfireLady sadly I watched on YouTube a while ago and I can't remember who she was talking to. I remember it was a middle aged man in a room with lots of books in it but that isn't very helpful in finding it!

I think it very much is a natural variation of what humans are. Humans who react to their environment.
All humans react to their environment in different ways. I think there is a tendency to react in a conformist way with who see as our peers. We sometimes confuse with being non conformist critical thinkers if who we see as peers aren't the "mainstream". I don't think anyone is immune to this.

some GC people that the aim of TRAs is to erase womanhood and that they believe that biological sex doesn't exist. I think a lot of TRAs would describe that as a misunderstanding of their position.

I can tell you that there are TRAs who for all intents and purposes believe that biological sex is not relevant in any way, because "intersex". It underpins most of their more "rational" arguments.

I don't agree that the GC belief is about "erasing womanhood" in any other way than including the opposite sex within it, thereby making it meaningless. Would you disagree that is a core belief of TRAs, that trans "women" are women?

I can't speak for them @Ereshkigalangcleg but an example I can think of that is that there is a feeling among some GC people that the aim of TRAs is to erase womanhood and that they believe that biological sex doesn't exist. I think a lot of TRAs would describe that as a misunderstanding of their position.

Also as a pp said, it's an incoherent belief. Ask a true believer to define what a woman is and watch them either use a circular argument or shut the conversation down because they don't want to admit it's entirely based on outdated sex stereotypes. It's incredibly relevant to the whole question. I don't want sexism and misogyny legitimised.

We live in a secular society. We are allowed to say that god doesn't exist. To be able for us to essentially say that gender identity ideology is nonsense and not be sacked for it a brave woman had to go through a gruelling series of court cases. And yes evidence was presented that biological sex is a thing. In the first tribunal the Twitter sophistry around disorders of sex development was part of what was considered enough to declare that gender critical belief wasn't a legitimate belief.

It's simply just I see no value in a conversation that challenges someone's core belief. Scroll up..

God exists.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.

Each side can offer and demand "evidence" to support/challenge their respective position but it won't go anywhere.

I saw a great video from a philosopher (Rebecca... Can't remember the surname) on this board where she looked at whether gender identity is proven as scientific fact or is a belief. She concluded it was a belief. No further probing needed. The more important conversation is the impact of that belief.