What do we want, do we really, really want??

I would just want us to be realistic about sex, and get away from awful stereotypes that we fought for so long.

You can never change sex and that is that. Our anatomy, physiology and genetics are different. Cutting bits off will never change the fundamentals.

However, your sex shouldn't define your preferences and lifestyle. Children's toys should be toys, not girl's toys and boy's toys. Same with clothing.

Men and women should be able to be engineers / track workers/ nail technicians / nurses / stay at home parents etc. Your interests are up to you and nothing to do with your sex.

The dividing line comes because in general males are physically stronger than females and are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes so there need to be spaces where women and girls and be safe away from men. This needs to be recognised and respected.

So both men and women can play different sports, but for a fair game the sports need to be separated according to sex. Otherwise women would never win.

The illustration is in women's cycling and swimming; mediocre male-born cyclists or swimmers compete against female-born cyclists or swimmers and start winning. They are no better cyclists or swimmers than they were previously, but their competition is less physically strong.

I think that, if a service is being provided that caters for different groups - say, men, women, and mixed, it should be mandatory to make at least one of the groups female-only, if there is demand. Yes, trans should be catered for somehow, but women should not just be faced with 'trans-inclusive or mixed, that's your lot'.

The way to cater for trans in services where sex may be relevant is to make them explicitly single-sex uni-gender, rather than the current uni-sex single-gender (which translates as 'trans-inclusive or mixed, that's your lot' for women).

Because most users of those spaces believe that transwomen are men, and the state has no power to force them to believe otherwise.

Transwomen ARE men. It is a fact and has nothing to do with the beliefs of a person sharing a space with them.

I belong to a women's group. It's not about feeling unsafe. It's just a different dynamic.

Special interest things - for me it would be field studies, local history/archaeology, botany - I'd join mixed groups, for maximum chances of having people with expertise and specialist knowledge. There's also a word of mouth factor, so most people would be friends of friends, or at least acquaintances of acquaintances. I would be disconcerted if I found myself the only woman in a group of strangers, but that seems as unlikely thing to happen.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if a man turned up at craft group - there's no reason sewing knitting crochet etc should be female-only activities, but I suspect our quiet co-operative dynamic might be disrupted in we got one of those chaps who needs to show leadership even in situations where no-one wants or needs to be led. Actually, I can immediately think of a few blokes who have tried that on field studies trips, but the great thing about outdoors is that dissidents wander away and focus on other things.

I enjoy being in mixed groups focussed on a specific purpose, but I definitely don't want men in places where I'll be partially clad or vulnerable, and I think both men and women should be able to opt for single-sex groups if they want to.

I don't think people driven by their own narcissistic neuroses would be an asset to any group activity.

Insistence that certain activities or spaces are "men only" or "women only" just because that's what people want.

@CassieMaddox I'd add to the above that this is, perhaps, another instance where the generic "people" we're seeing so much of obscures the fact that men and women may "want" separate activities or spaces for very different reasons - and also the different points at which "want" may actually shade into "need".

The obvious example is safety. I'd be infinitely more likely to join a birdwatching (twitchers'?!) group if - well, firstly if I actually had the remotest interest in this 😀, but also - if it were women only. I'd be very wary of finding myself squashed into a tiny hide in the middle of nowhere with one or several male strangers otherwise. Ditto walking, hiking, wild swimming, lift-shares - as in the case of Sal's Giggle app - ... you name it, really.

That's one of the things that we've already lost (apparently, appallingly, without anyone even thinking, or caring enough, to anticipate the impact on women): how many of us are already self-excluding not just from crisis centres and "inclusive" swimming pools, but also from clubs and meets like this, uncomfortably aware that "women" may now mean "men"? And how many are turning up only to realise they've been lied to, then quietly leaving rather than risk the wrath of a man or have to justify their discomfort.

(Re: another thread, this is what Staffordshire County Council are complicit in when they advertise period products without using the word "woman" - they're normalising the idea that women are no longer a distinct demographic without unique needs - including the need even for a name! - and this makes it easier for this to happen, and harder for women to challenge it).

But safety aside, we all recognise that the dynamic can be different in female-only, male-only and mixed social groups, too, for example.

And I don't think men should necessarily be resented some time away from women, either!

The one counter-argument to this that I've never yet felt confident formulating an answer to is the analogy of a "white-only" social group. This would be utterly anathema to all (I truly hope) but a tiny, racist minority in this country. In this context, I find it hard to put into words why, in contrast, I think men only is potentially OK (eg. as long as it isn't systematically excluding women from corridors of power, business etc., as in eg. the Garrick or the Masons etc.). We could, equally, turn this question around to ask: what the heck took us so long to question the Garrick, given that, in contrast, an (officially, explicitly*) white-only equivalent would have been quite rightly consigned to conscience-stricken history some time (if not nearly long enough) ago. Just a quick google shows a wide range of reputable sources still, effectively, dismissing women's admittance as unnecessary, unreasonable, absurd... And even in typing this hypothetical analogy as part of a rather confused attempt to understand my own views on single-sex groups, I feel as though I'm being in some way inappropriate or potentially offensive (if anyone feels this, I apologise).

*NB. I recognise that the Garrick etc. is still a bastion of white privilege, and that this is maintained in an infinity of complex, problematic other ways...

I want men to fuck off out of women's stuff.

I want an answer to the question "Why does the category of woman now include 'non-binary and anyone who identifies as a woman'"?

My previous workplace advertised the Athena Swan women's leadership training programme - not to women but to any human being who identified themselves as a woman i.e. men. Fuck off, fuck off and fuck off again. Get your man hands off our stuff. And while I'm ranting, the idiotic women who support this shit can fuck off too.

Finally, I want an answer to the question - why does sport have to wrestle with the inclusion of transgender and DSD athletes? The science is clear. DSD athletes are overrepresented in elite women's sports suggesting an advantage. Transgender male athletes have no right to inclusion in women sports. Both groups need to leave women's stuff alone.

Great idea for a thread @theilltemperedclavecinist .

I'm on the "classically liberal sex realist" side.
What I want:

1. recognition that female biology impacts womens lives in such a way that its needs recognising and prioritising. Periods, pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, menopause are all things women navigate and are impacted by to a greater or lesser extent and its very important to me this is recognised.
2. as much safeguarding as possible whilst prioritising the right "for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in". In practice that means single sex spaces where necessary for safety and dignity, and no to full self ID. So e.g male voyeurs can't just pop into a woman's changing room at the gym solely on the basis of saying "I'm a woman"
3. single sex data recording (gender could also be recorded separately) so services, crimes etc are accurately representative
4. single sex prisons and sports

What I don't want:

1. Insistence that certain activities or spaces are "men only" or "women only" just because that's what people want.
2. rigid separation of sexes based on stereotypes e.g. clothes, external presentation
3. any law or social contract that compels how individuals refer to themselves or choose to live their lives. I agree with the right for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in.

Historically gender stereotypes, forced separation of the sexes and laws/strong social contracts have been used to subjugate and control women so for me the risks of the "authoritarian sex-realist" approach outweigh the benefits.

Habitués of this board will know that, from time to time, a proxy war breaks out between classically liberal sex-realists (gender ideology is a belief, believers should not be discriminated against, and non-believers should not be forced to participate), and authoritarian sex-realists (sex-realism should be enforced by law and by custom, in some way). this is a fantastic summary!

Off to read the thread now

I couldn’t agree with you more. I would never use the words feminine or masculine, because to me they’re just enforcing really old fashioned ideas about clothing, appearance, hobbies, interests etc. I really thought we’d left these ideas behind in the 70s. Even at my very strict convent grammar school in the 60s, we were encouraged to think we could be whatever we wanted from an engineer to a nurse, to an actor. I brought my sons up to wear whatever they liked and play with anything they liked from train sets to Furbies to toy kitchens.

Life for teenage girls these days seems absolutely appalling, with the pressures to look a certain way, do well academically, boys who think choking during sex is normal, worries about drinks being spiked and needle injuries whilst out clubbing, etc etc
Apologies for ranting on, but all this does make me incredibly angry!

It's not possible, but there are certain pointers. If a man feels more comfortable presenting in accordance with regressive, feminine stereotypes and chooses to wear clothing like skirts and dresses, I suppose I'd have to support that. To do otherwise is counter to my own ideological position, which is that gender stereotypes are regressive and harmful to both sexes as well as trans people, and that breaking these down can only be a good thing. I can't take such a position and then try to dictate the conditions under which people should or shouldn't be free to choose their own clothing (well I could, but it would indicate a degree of cognitive dissonance).

There are limits to this, and this movement in particular are very good at stampeding over these. Plain, ordinary women's clothes tend to be the preserve of the old-school transexual, although Debbie Hayton presents as such and is a self-confessed AGP. Then there's the parody of womanhood like, for instance, Grayson Perry's 'Claire' (another self-confessed AGP). One is much more noticeable than the other, but both are of the same ilk. IME, though, those who don't want to draw attention to themselves, generally don't.

There are certain men in my working environment who turn up wearing fetish gear. IMO if it's inappropriate for women to wear (cf. the protestation that rape victims were 'asking for it' because of their choice of clothing) then it should also be inappropriate for men who choose to present as feminine.

The above points are moot, however, because in a free society people are at liberty to dress as they choose. And were that to change, you can bet your boots women would be the first ones to suffer. The issue is: where does discrimination against trans people start and end, where does discrimination against women start and end, and where is the crossover between the two? It's in that crossover that women overwhelmingly lose out, and might be entitled to question whether your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts.

I don't believe people should be discriminated against for how they present. Let them go out in the street like that; unless, for instance, they're masquerarding their packet in tight leggings a la Isla Bryson before an unwilling audience.

But this doesn't make them women, and they have no business whatsoever in women's spaces. GRC or no GRC.

If someone wants to refer to a bloke in a dress as she/her they can crack on.

What they can't do is make me refer to him in that way and any attempts to do so are doomed to failure.

I think we should bring back the idea that the workplace has its own rules for what is appropriate to wear. There was a thread on here about someone's experience of working with a tw air "hostess" who wore a very sexualised version of what the women wore - and nobody said anything for fear of being transphobic. I don't think it's ever appropriate to expect women to wear heels or make up at work but I think we have gone from this to "absolutely anything goes" far too thoughtlessly.

I want to sign up to your manifesto @theilltemperedclavecinist but with a slight adjustment of how we word "I will expect to be able to challenge her beliefs politely and not get disciplined for it."
I expect to be able to make statements about my own beliefs, when in an appropriate context (ie that those beliefs are relevant) and not get disciplined for it. However, I would expect someone who started preaching their religion at work to be disciplined - not for holding their beliefs but for preaching them where they aren't needed. I want Susan to understand that her belief she is a woman is just as worthy of respect as Fatima's belief that There Is No True God But Allah and Muhammed Is His Prophet but that neither of them has any obligation to act as if each other's beliefs are true, so long as they act with respect. I would not dream of challenging Fatima's beliefs though I would have no embarrassment to admit I didn't share them and to share what I do believe if asked. I want Susan's beliefs to have the same status.

So my proposed alternative wording for your manifesto would be

"I will expect it to be widely acknowleded that a spectrum of beliefs on the subject of gender are to be expected and are acceptable, and anyone who shares their beliefs (if asked) should not get disciplined for it, and no one should assume or require a uniformity of beliefs."

Happy for this to be improved upon further.

That’s, incidentally, something else I find fascinating about traditional constructs of gender. They’re often highly “classist”. The vast, vast majority of women in 17th century France wouldn’t be prancing around in cinched waists - they’d be muscly, filthy, and hard as nails.

Third attempt!

It really is very simple.

Repeal the GRA so that no more lies are allowed in life and law.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs, love the French nobleman comment. For the surreal image, but also… If we could all be magicked, by that weird twist of fate, right back then with you (and, with another weird twist of fate, have the freedom to choose…) then wouldn’t it be fascinating to see who among us would choose which clothes, which mannerisms… and, to make that choice, accept the associated restrictions imposed on those with a “female” gender then. I could see there being a lot more transmen. I’m not so sure how transwomen may respond. How many would, tragically, choose to live in the metaphorical closet to retain male privilege? And who would perhaps, rather, review what they’d previously perceived as an innate truth to come to a genuinely different conclusion? And which would each scenario mean about what gender actually could be? So many different demographics, with different needs, make up the group now called transgender… A fascinating, if utterly weird and unwieldy (and yes, totally logically flawed in half a dozen ways) I know - thought experiment!

your last paragraph is interesting. (and I'm working this out as I type, sorry)

There are man and woman clothes, in that men and women have different shaped bodies, so shirts and trousers for example are cut differently. The most obvious example of course being a bra - an item that most women feel much more comfortable wearing and no man with a healthy body requires.

There are also clothes that we currently code masculine or feminine, and that coding changes over time. I am quite a lazy person and generally happy to conform in many areas for an easy life. I present in a fairly feminine way as part of that conforming. BUT, if for my easy life I had to dress exclusively in black, brown or grey, minimal jewellery, discreet or no makeup, I would be miserable (and very bored). I LIKE jewellery, make up, bright colours, interesting clothes and shoes, soft, sheer and patterned fabrics, things that are currently coded as feminine.

if by some (very weird) twist of fate I had to dress as a 17th century french noble man to conform I think that would suit me just fine. I'm not sure it's the coding that attracts me I think it's the items themselves. but maybe I'm just making the same excuse auto gynephile men make!

the point I'm trying to get to is maybe some men just LIKE to look in a way that is currently coded as feminine, and I don't think that will ever change.