Why do all trans discussions end in a bun fight?

With a man, presumably?

This is such a simple and yet brilliant way of putting it thank you .

@Name5 Do you think the non binary identity is a phase she will grow out of?

It's the feminist board so feminist things will come up - that's the point, really. We want space to discuss very important and very pertinent problems that affect women now.

As to your DD, I don't think you need to bully her with your feelings. Some biological facts would do - she's not a young man. Something she may find out in much more uncomfortable ways without your help to see it.
As to 'doing no harm', she is asking everyone around her to lie about what is perfectly plain and to disregard biological fact because it suits her. That's harm to others, IMHO. Sorry.

Because people that believe sex is not binary - can’t handle the truth that it is. And that that truth, is immovable. The truth hurts and it manifests itself as aggression. Tra know it and so it’s like being backed into a corner, there’s no escaping the truth.

What did you want from this thread, op? Your daughter is heading down a path to poor health. Do you feel "attacked and bullied" by being told that? Or do you accept that it comes from a place of concern for your child who is self-harming? There are plenty of links on this board to places where you can find support in trying to move your child away from harming herself.

Threads turn into bun fights because TRAs want them to.

Having now read the whole thread, I'd like to respond to this comment.

"anti-trans"

What does "anti-trans" mean?

Do you think the poster you are quoting is anti trans people, or anti the idea of being trans?

To me it makes a big difference.

Anti is framed as such a negative word, but we can't be pro everything. You can be anti war, anti apartheid, your soap can be antibacterial. It's actually a good thing to be anti things which are negative.

For example, I am anti smoking. I think it's a vile habit and would gladly see it banned everywhere. Does that mean I hate all people who smoke? No, of course not. It's the smoking I am against, not the people who are addicted to it.

Same with trans. I am not anti trans people. I can think of individual trans people I like very much. I certainly wish them no harm.

But trans as in the idea, well yes, I'm definitely anti that. I simply don't believe there is any such thing as a gender identity which matches any kind of genitalia. I find the idea ridiculous, and the consequences of people holding this belief harmful. It's harmful to the individuals concerned, particularly those who go on to ruin their health with unnecessary medical interventions. It's harmful to those around them, including their families who may be destroyed by it, and wider society such as women and girls who want and deserve single sex spaces and sports. I find the whole thing pernicious.

If someone considers that "trans" is a harmful ideology, then calling them "anti trans" isn't going to have much impact. Because it's normal to be anti things that you consider harmful.

The whole 'well I don't have a problem so I don't understand why you should' is just dreadful privileged nonsense which isn't actually listening.

“I think another problem is that different groups of people have different perceptions of the risk posed by transwomen in women's spaces.”

The current social media content released around Will Ferrell’s series is a good example of this. The ‘I don’t know why …. ‘ disingenuous statement seems very tone deaf when you see it.

I feel the same way though when I see women who dismiss other women’s issues. The statements such as ‘I don’t have a problem with these males being in female single sex spaces’ then positioning those who do as bigots and hateful and ignorant seems to only come from privilege or idealism or a very heavy personal investment. Or all three.

Whatever the motivation, what those people have in common is lowered boundaries. And they want to shame those who don’t have low boundaries.

When anyone shames women and girls to lower their boundaries to allow these male people access, it is not fucking kind at all.

Thank you to the OP for coming back, many posters don't, and I join other posters in sending good wishes to you and your daughter in negotiating your way through 'things' [keeping that as neutral as possible!].

There are no buns to enjoy, though, OP, as this has not been a bun fight. There have been helpful pointers to other threads, strong opinions, thoughtful insights, personal testimonies, about a difficult topic which has no middle ground, but buns? I don't think so.

“Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.”

“You could imagine a graph with characteristics like what gametes you produce, what hormones you secrete, what chromosomes you have, what physical development you display, what psychological traits in brain structure etc etc - we divide this into two categories but could theoretically have many more.”

When the exceptions are those with medical conditions, why does society need to distort the category definition to fit this miniscule number of people?

Considering through the current medical technology, it is very very rare to not be able to categorise a person into either of the sexed body group. Therefore, these paragraphs don’t really reflect the situation in my opinion.

I have seen the bipedal category used as a good comparator. If a person has been born that has more or less legs than two, are they considered to be not a human?

I think that the descriptor of a human with a body formed around the production of small / large gametes, regardless of whether those gametes are produced at any time is a safe categorisation tool.

That will cover many people with differences of sex development too who get leveraged into these discussions by people who want to utilise their conditions to somehow explain gender identity and the ideological concepts that drive those identities.

I think another problem is that different groups of people have different perceptions of the risk posed by transwomen in women's spaces. Many men just don't understand the level of fear that many women have of being in a vulnerable position with a transwoman because they personally don't feel any risk. So they have no opposition to transmen being in spaces for men either because they don't feel vulnerable.

@DeanElderberry I am sorry to hear about your friend/family member. That really is horrific. I hope that as medical science develops some improvement can be found for her.

An observation I've made is that pro trans people often focus on the individual friend or family member and their rights as an individual, in contrast to gender critical people who tend to view things on a more general basis . . .

Some gender critical people were moved out of a position of neutrality or uninterest by suddenly seeing the catastrophic psychological and physical damage done to a person in their family or friend group who was encouraged into adopting a trans identity. It is almost like bereavement.

I resist the use of that expression 'deadname' because women change names so often without dying, but the extreme reality-denying position adopted by some genderists, pretending that the girl or boy you knew never existed, is horrific. And I can't think of anything that would shake off the fluffy 'be kind' blindfold more effectively than seeing a formerly strong healthy girl stuck in a wheelchair because of 'gender affirming' interventions.

Gender stinks.

I'm here because my middle aged brother has decided the answer to all his problems is to demand the rights of a Transwoman.
And it's only rights not obligations except to live his best life.

He's stolen HRT
Made a suicide attempt that involved sending texts to more people than a company newsletter and leaving the door unlocked.
Deliberately got himself beaten up in a pub. Literally asked for it but it's going to court.
Is now making clumsy references to sanitary product to my daughter's.
Poncing money from my mum to pay for the whole costume & lifestyle without covering his basic bills.

Obviously this is a long way from your DD.
It's also a long way from my gay friends together for 30 years. And teenage lesbians finding their way.

But when we get manipulative people like my brother loudly demanding rights without obligations using other groups as window dressing, that's why I'm here armed with buns.

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

You could imagine a graph with characteristics like what gametes you produce, what hormones you secrete, what chromosomes you have, what physical development you display, what psychological traits in brain structure etc etc - we divide this into two categories but could theoretically have many more.

This is utter bullshit. Every single human can be defined as male or female.

We've done this over and over. It's embarrassing for you.

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. But that’s a circular argument. Without the rule, how will we know?

An observation I've made is that pro trans people often focus on the individual friend or family member and their rights as an individual, in contrast to gender critical people who tend to view things on a more general basis and look at the effects on women more widely of men being able to identify into women's spaces, women's sports, and the harm to vulnerable people of gender ideology. When people are coming from different starting points there will always be a clash of views.

Some gender critical people have tried to find middle ground and have suggested third spaces but these have been rejected by some trans supporters as "othering" and gender critical people have been told some trans people will refuse to use them. Personally, I can't see a resolution to this impasse. However, as trans/non binary becomes less fashionable to teenagers the number of people involved will decrease and the problems may become less pressing. Third spaces (in addition to sexed facilities) such as individual toilet cubicles with their own handwashing facilities and floor to ceiling walls may also be introduced in more new buildings which will also help to reduce conflict.

I regard gender stereotypes as sexism. I find saying you are trans relies on sexism to underpin it.

And that's why we need to see sex as part of this discussion.

Also it's important that transmen retain their sex based rights, because they are particularly vulnerable for various reasons.

So we want to protect boys, girls, young men and young women (and within that especially lesbians and gays and autistic and those who have been sexually abused) from transition which is inappropriate for them and causes them harm.

We also want to protect those who do transition from health related risks and to make sure there is adequate awareness of the draw backs of this.

We also want to protect girls and women from transwomen being used as a loophole for the nefarious who have transitioned or men who just exploit the loophole.

This isn't anti trans. This recognition of an actual issue.

Equally transwomen need potentially protecting from themselves and being in denial over their own sex because of the snake oil of promises and actually health concerns which are retained with sex.

Yet we are framed as 'anti-trans'.

No we are anti nonsense and pro women and girls