What is your definition of TRA?

-uses the slur Terf or cis

• says TWAW
• supports self id
• sees no issue with self id men in prisons /single sex spaces
• attends protests against women's free speech
• calls women bigots
• is nasty to women online
• accuses women of 'transphobia'
• supports campaigns to stop film screenings etc
• signs petitions against women's rights
• supports TRA political candidates

@TheClogLady ah, thanks for clarifying.

I’m aware! I was just pointing out that unfortunately, ‘gender neutral’ is currently being installed as a replacement for single sex, rather than in addition to single sex.

Sadly, the TRA position is to replace single sex with single gender (whatever the fuck that means) or to make everything mixed sex.
Additional gender neutral is the reasonable compromise but trans activists say that’s ’othering’.

@TheClogLady this set up is mixed sex only. That is not what I am responding to.

My childrens school installed this type of toilets 10 years ago, but to avoid bullying.

Its boys and girls in stall next to each other, sharing sinks. They are 'gender neutral', that is, mixed sex, but not single occupancy.

I dont know what problem schools think they solve.

I just typed a long post and lost it so this one will be short.

I have not seen the thread you refer to as I wasn't interested when I read the OP. If people are posting as you have described, then that would seem to be a less common approach on this road compared to the usage I mentioned. I have not really seen the usage you have mentioned used on this board. I have seen and used the usage I have mentioned.

"Do you accept that critical thinkers can come to different conclusions to each other?"

I think sometimes yes. However, if the evidence is strong or the logic is strong then I would assume that most people who look at that evidence would make conclusions that are not diametrically opposed. And may be close, if not the broadly the same.

For instance, when presented with the statistics for male sex crime, and then listening to female people describe in detail why they need toilets to be single sex not single gender, one would think that most people would support single sex toilets with a third space provision. Or a solution that protects female people. Do you agree?

Or when presented with study after study for

just how little impact the removal of testosterone to a post pubescent male body has,
how concussion is significantly increased as a health risk in female bodies,
how the wear and tear on female bodies is so significant when those bodies are already performing at the peak for female performance that it shortens those female athletes careers to keep pushing,
that menstrual cycles make female bodies prone to injury and lower performance,
that show that female people will self exclude from sports if they are competing against male people in events that are meant to be for only female people.

I would expect most people applying critical thinking would reach similar conclusions. That male athletes should not be included in female sport even if they suppress their testosterone. Now, that doesn't mean that those athletes are 'banned' from the sport, but they should not be included.

Do you think that someone critically thinking would draw similar conclusions? This is, unless they believe that all of the above should be negated by the need to include male athletes in a sports category they want to participate in because of that philosophical belief I referred to in the other post.

A brand new, purpose built secondary school opened near me a couple of years ago.

Every toilet for student use is advertised as ‘gender neutral’, accessible loos have sinks in the cubicle but most have a central trough sink with hand dryers on the end of the unit.

Here’s the page from the prospectus:

It's sometimes possible to apply critical thought and come to different views, when facts are few and inadequate. If you apply critical thinking then I'd understand your reasoning and possibly be persuaded by it. If I didnt find it persuasive we would at least both understand the other's point of view, why we differ and if facts are few I'd recognise that either could be right. TRAs dont do that - it's critical thought against emotion and too bigoted to consider they might be wrong.

We've seen many examples of people in the "be kind" group who have outsourced their thinking and to those who havent applied critical thinking.

Maybe schools could think about the TRA they promote if they have enough children struggling with their gender to have a toilet policy, when it was something predominant effecting middle aged men 20 years ago.

This is exactly the compromise we need. Single sex and gender neutral to cater for everyone.

A TRA would reject this as othering rather than a sensible compromise.

The local school has gone down that route as well, which seems a sensible move. As long as the line is maintained for single sex provision for those who want or need it, a third space it great.

But isn’t that just healthy discussion? I have talked about this with many friends and some of us have very opposing views, but engaging in good faith in conversation wouldn’t make either of us activists, I don’t think.

(I would say I am an activist as I go to protests, contribute to legal funds, support by donation, write letters, sign petitions etc, but my discussions with friends who disagree aren’t what make me one)

Anyone who is publicly active in promoting gender ideology, whether in terms of convincing others to believe in GI, or promoting GI in organisations or public life,, or engaging in protests against women who are GC.

Someone who holds private beliefs in GI but does not seek to publicly promote those views, I would not call a TRA. IME most of these people change their mind once they understand what GI actually is.

This.

We all have the same rights. TRA want others slices of cake as well as their own.

For me a TRA is someone more active than just accepting the Be Kind bullshit that puts the rights and dignity of women and girls at risk.

If someone passively believes TWAW without giving it too much thought I would not call them a TRA. If they hear the school
has introduced mixed sex/gender neutral toilets and thinks that’s a good idea, still not a TRA.

If someone emails their local school to suggest inviting Mermaids to give a talk or querying why the school isn’t in the Stonewall scheme, that would make them a TRA to me.

Active engagement on supposed trans rights to the detriment of others = TRA

(This is of particular concern locally because of a high proportion of children from religious and cultural backgrounds who are excluded from participation and facilities once mixed sex becomes policy.)

This, I think.

@Betweenthe2
I was replying to the issue of critical thinking, rather than defining activist. If someone is discussing their views with people who do not agree with them, then there is, to me, an indication of attempting to change the other person's mind, thus activism of a sort.

There is a difference between someone who actively pushes for gender identity to override biological sex in law, policy, health settings etc, who I think of as a TRA (well, actually I think of them as TDEs or TPAs - trans demands extremists or trans privileges activists) and someone who would agree TWAW and we should 'be kind' and use their 'preferred pronouns', who is a trans ally but doesn't do anything specific to further the GI cause or to insult women who stand up for their rights.

(But then not everyone who agrees that biological sex is a reality and men can't become women is actually "gender critical" by the original definition of the phrase, and even fewer are true radfems, but that doesn't stop us all being badged as "GC" or "T*RF" by those who follow the GI religion.)

To be a trans rights activist, one has to state that one believes that people can change their sex, that people have a gendered soul and that sex is assigned rather than observed at birth. All of those statements indicate, to me, that the person doing the believing is lacking in critical thinking.

“However TRA is used as insult here, along with "incapable of critical thought".”

And what are the contexts that you have seen people being insulted by being told they are not thinking an issue through critically?

And are you offended by what you see as insults, rather than thinking through why someone has said what they have said? Is saying someone isn’t capable of thinking critically an insult or observation?

Particularly when someone has just repeated mantra like and thought terminating terms and phrases that are framed by ideological belief rather than objective consideration of evidence and material reality. I have seen many posters simply plop down links or repeat the words of a person they believe has the answer, only to find that person’s ’answer’ is based on false or very weak evidence. But the poster has plopped it down and fully believes that it is a robustly presented concept. Can you explain why in that situation the statement that the person has not used critical thinking to reach a strong position is insult vs observation?

Or do you believe the term is always insulting and should not be used on a discussion board ? Do you believe that people’s opinions should not be analysed and just accepted? Even when it is attached to a scolding?