Why is Mumsnet so GC?

I have a dreadful feeling im somebody’s sock 😳

whats really worrying me is exactly whose sock i am

(please god don’t let me be boileds sock…)

I suspect the ‘force’ is about not using female single sex spaces. And not using the language female people need for themselves to refer to Hatched, a male person.

I suspect the emotionally manipulative hyperbole is about is all the things that these male transitioners claim from female people.

Nah, there's just the six of us here, plus our socks. No one else cares about it, at all. Apparently.

That is the opposite of gender critical.

As JKR said

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.

Your disagreement is with women having sex based rights.

Hence:

“But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”

Or is there something else you think GC feminists are forcing people to do or not do?

No one is being forced to do anything of course, but what BH means when BH says “pretend to be a man” or make males like BH “live according to stereotypes” is that males like BH are being asked to acknowledge their male sex, admit to themselves and others that they are and always will be of the male sex and accept that society needs to structure itself according to sex (not the non-definable “gender identity”) and not defy that for one’s own individual demands at the expense of others.

But BH can’t do that because BH has sunk cost fallacy, having been in this for a while now. And despite BH arguing online about it since 12 years old in 1995, it seems this is the first time anyone has challenged BH with such notions, so is struggling to get BH’s head around the concept.

I think that’s what BH means by being “forced”: “forced” to think of other people for a change.

GC talking points is a phrase used by people intent on pretending that it's not true that ordinary people have never and will never be taken in by the idea that men ever really do "change sex".

We all see the effort made by men, with extremely varied results, and see that some participants believe it's effective, but it's not.

That's not changed or changing. And it's understood, not as some obscure thing labelled "GC talking points" but as life, normal life. Men are not women, it's the most ordinary statement in the world.

force people to behave in a specific way solely due to the structure of their DNA

If you mean asking adult males to stay out of women’s changing rooms/hospital wards/prisons, then yes you’re right, this is what GC feminists want (we’re hardly in a position to ‘force’ it though).

Is that the sort of thing you’re referring to? Or is there something else you think GC feminists are forcing people to do or not do?

so you think there are not GC people out there at all, who do not use mumsnet

That's the board, which is a start, but there's no details at all about an actual clinical study. They need to set up any study so that it's ethical, and that's not going to be easy.

Naming Simonoff as the Chief Investigator for the study is a start. It looks like she is gathering together stakeholders for a discussion about the protocol and will lead the drafting of it.

I was only really thinking about meeting formal ethical standards and processes. And wondering what that could look like for a medical procedure which has been done for a couple of decades and has some evidence of both harm and benefit, and doesn't have evidence of a much bigger benefit, especially not compared (say) to waiting until adulthood. For children it's going to be very difficult to set up a trial that meets ethical standards.

I agree. Certain medics have been wilfully experimenting on children and young people with untested drugs and brutal experimental surgery to the extent that without the trans protection, other medics would be in court for this. How you ethically study the sterilisation of children and young people or ethically study the impact of drugs and surgery that hinder natural pubertal development of young people is difficult to comprehend.

This is classic wilfully obtuse Butterfly.

None of us want anyone to behave in a specific way because of the chromosomes or whatever. What we are saying is that the biology is what makes one male or female.

There really should be no need for a concept of ‘gender’. And absolutely no need to transition. Because boys can wear what they like, have their hair how they like, and have whatever interests they like and none of that makes them girls.

As soon as you start talking about transitioning etc, you are right in there reifying gender norms (even as you reject biology).

What specific way do you think that is?

What specific way do you think we think that is?

How does forcing come into it? Is it like making you put the bins out or the bunny gets it?

Well, they did leave bottles of Scotch so…

I agree that there should be no gender-enforcement behaviour and we should have the right to live free of gender norms.

I would say that forcing people to behave in a specific way solely due to the structure of their DNA is about as close as you can get to gender-enforcement behaviour.

That's the board, which is a start, but there's no details at all about an actual clinical study. They need to set up any study so that it's ethical, and that's not going to be easy.

Did anyone else see the six foot white rabbit or just you? (What was that film called? Was it Harvey?).

Did your parents leave psychedelic drugs lying around the house?

I did see he Easter Bunny at my infant school, back in the early 80s.

It was a girl bunny (or at least wearing a dress).

I do not know why as she/it did not come round the classes, as I had assumed it would do (I thought it would be a staff member in a costume). It was just there in the playground one playtime.

No one ever mentioned it. It’s the strangest memory I have.

It's like being forced to agree the Easter Bunny is indeed real because John in Accounts is adamant he saw the real Easter Bunny in spring 1986.

Ah, yes. Also of the 'get tits early' advice.

I remember one of the many Fae/Faye people then defining a woman as a 'shifting constellation'.

Shon "enjoy ur erasure" Faye.

There certainly hasn't been much validation going on.

Well, it certainly isn't in my job description to "validate" people's self image, not something I signed up for, sorry.

Exactly!!!!

Nearly four decades worth of gender-enforcement behaviour and I still haven't given in.

There should be no gender-enforcement behaviour. We should all have the right to live free of 'gender norms'. That's what being 'gender critical' means!

It's sex which is real, immutable, dimorphic and - for a limited number of situations - important.

Lol - I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the previous excellent posts highlighting what women know - that there's not one feminist movement /leader/party / organisation and musing on why some people are so desperate to pretend that the growing social realisation of what's happening can be defined as a collapse. Here's @RedToothBrush's excellent post as a reminder:

"Someone spends too much time on twitter in a bubble.
There is no movement.
There is spontaneous grass roots understanding and growing awareness of the injustice and flawed logic that transwomen are the most oppressed and women need to be the ones to change to accommodate that.
The damn burst fucking ages ago on that.

Women are talking amongst themselves and men are starting to just get pissed off at it all. And the examples of injustice and problematic scenarios which are causing systematic safeguarding failures and freedom of speech failures just keep growing.

An idea is only as good as it works in practice. Gender replacing sex only creates harms to wider society. Someone with gender identity issues needs to deal with them themselves rather than expecting the whole world to play along. This might sound harsh, but that's the reality.

That means open categories and women only categories in sport. That means single sex provision anywhere there is a state of undress or discussion of intimate issues or bodily functions as an absolute minimum. That could mean provision of third spaces too though, but alongside single sex and not replacing them and not transforming existing womens facilities (this reducing provision) but not mens.

The fact you see arguing on twitter and come to the conclusion that there is a fracture in a movement that doesn't actually exist is utterly fascinating and reflective of a lot of the problem tbh." 👏👏