Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

@Janine2363 no human being wrote that post, there is no voice within it. I might be as thick as two short planks, but it sounds like you are saying queen Victoria invented gender differences, and not pre historic society, or ancient Egyptians, or babylonians, or romans or Tudors or vikings or any other random society pre- queen victoria. As if there weren’t sex segregated women in ye olde pre-colonial India.

I do think your daughter quite kindly and sensibly would like a third space for transgender folk, for their dignity and hers.

Firstly, your son doesn’t have to be overtly manipulative or angry to have some kind of control over you, the adult in the relationship. He seems to have already done a good job of conditioning you to act to keep his respect.

This includes celebrating lowered boundaries for your children. The fact you think it is something to feel good about that your daughter would come to the decision to share a space with any male person who says they are female is concerning.

The statistics show that no male at any stage of transition has a lower risk profile (from conviction stats from MoJ) of committing sex and violent crimes than any other male person in the UK. Yet you think that a male people without their penis should be accommodated in the male toilets. Based not on fact, but on feelings that you have of protecting a male person who you feel needs it.

Not only that, but male people without their penis, are still as strong as other male people.

Can you tell us exactly what is the difference between a male person who has no penis because of injury or disease and one who has voluntarily had it removed for their philosophical belief ?

I've seen the frankly hilarious, ignorant and racist (Jaysus I sound like Sturgeon) 'sex didn't exist until colonialism' trotted out by tras. Tbf I don't think that's the point being made here. I think the point being made is that the government that replaced or was grafted onto/over what was there previously has left its mark still. I don't see what that has to do with gender ideology though. Certainly some laws left from colonial times still negatively affect LGB individuals.

If a law could be tailored just for Vince/Vanessa and just him that would be one thing. But it can't. However much that might upset him and his friends. However unkind that might seem. Perhaps it might be helpful if his allies weren't constantly telling him that disagreement is hatred. Not wanting him in our toilets, changing rooms and sports is not the same as wanting him dead. I'm glad he's got the PPs kids as friends. They could support him by helping see the nuance in GC arguments. He can wear what he wants, use whatever name he chooses. He doesn't need my permission. I don't care what hormones make his brain happy. His sex is and will always be male though.

“it is equally possible that certain brains work better with hormones of a certain sex, thus testosteron for a trans men, and estrogen for a trans woman. I think that is plausible.”

Considering both male people taking estriodol and female people taking testosterone leads to increases in stroke, I suspect you are spreading misinformation with this opinion.

Will they ‘feel’ better? Maybe. Euphoria has been well documented to start with and some people might experience this state for a long time. Testosterone is a know euphoric for females, at least at the start until issues settle in.

So do some brains ‘work’ better? No. They are increased risk. Do they ‘feel’ better’ after the euphoria period wears off? Unless you have proof of this, please don’t repeat this.

It really seems to me that you are searching for neurological markers of any kind to grasp hold of to make some kind of argument of plausibility. Do you wonder why you are doing this ? Why you feel the need to find ‘plausible’ theories that don’t really reflect any reality at all, if all this was based on fact and established evidence? Unless gender identity theory is not based on any evidence at all and contradicts the known evidence.

It would explain a lot

With the mix mash of (hilariously incorrect) history 'facts' and wild surmise, I am beginning to suspect a cabal of gender studies students are writing some of these posts...

I'm really trying to figure out what the hell you mean here, but it seems like you are saying you don't think sex existed as a concept until American puritan types invented it.

Is that really your point?

Thanks for getting back to me!

I'm really sorry but I can't work out whether your reply is saying 'yes, I personally do think is some quality (such as found in the brain, the personality, the skills, manner, characteristics of a person) that exists only in one sex and not the other', or whether your reply is 'no, I think any quality can be found in either sex'?

I do appreciate this is because I haven't quite grasped the full context of your reply but if you could shed any light...?!

And, @Janine2363 , how would your daughter ever know if any male had actually "fully transitioned" when deciding whether she would be comfortable sharing an intimate space with them?

Would your daughter feel the same way about a man she didn't know who identified as a women sharing female single sex spaces as she does about Vanessa? If a 6ft tall adult man who identified as a woman was in a changing room with her would she think it unjust if he was asked to leave.

Thing is, all that can be true (it probably isn't but it could be), and none of it changes the fact that people with female bodies face (a) different physical capabilties, most significantly the higher physical and because of that higher social cost of reproduction and in the vulnerablity to assault by the opposite sex, but also in sports and other strength or speed based activities, and (b) social, cultural and economic disadvantages because of the long history of discrimination and sadly abuse of people with female bodies. And these things affect not just how others treat us and the life opportunities we have, but also how we understand ourselves.

And for that reason, all the fluff in the world about "male brains that run better on oestrogen" is not an argument to pretend that female bodies are less significant to the life experiences of the people who have them than some sort of imagined but never identified commobality of brain.

Having a reason for why men might feel they are "really" women is not a reason that such men are actually the same as women. Their hands touching us, their eyes on us, their bodies near us, their voices speaking over us, might be women's hands, eyes, bodies, voices in their reality but they are still men's hands, eyes, bodies and voices in ours.

Female people exist in our own right, and men's feelings of commonality do not change that.

You seem to think sex, DNA etc is somehow irrelevent, but at the same time think that "man" and "woman" are still meaningful as some sort of mental difference - can you explain that? Why do we even need groups called "men" and "woman" at all? I can see the need for it when it's based on sex because ther manifestly ae two sexes and women in particular manifestly have physical and social challenges that men do not, but why is there a need to ignore that but still split people up into men and women by mind?

Written like that it may result in a misinterpretation. The potential misinterpretation being: "Janine's daughter is proposing to open up single sex spaces to trans women"

What I understood was more like: "It is unjust toward Vanessa to put her in a male space, as that would be hurtful to her. But insofar she is not transitioned and how things are in practice, when sharing the space where I am, but also do not fully own, we need to figure out something that works"

But in honesty those are now my words, but good thing is, that by writing here and being able to explain my thoughts and getting feedback, we know have an honest discussion at home, so: To be continued

:-)

It is dizzying, and to be honest, it truly feels like a culture war, blown out of proportion. For the sake of more references, I found a reaction on the Cass report. I had seen other reports, a mix of both confirmations and question marks, here's another of such a one

law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

To me it appears that when talking about 'man' vs. 'woman' differences, as they play out and how we act and react to it are religious before cultural before biology, before genetics. The impression I get is that when the emphasis is totally on genetics (DNA, sex as born) it comes from the US and voiced by the descendants of the protestant people that didn't like the 'age of enlightenment' in Europe and shipped themselves to the new world. For the UK perhaps 'queen Victoria' and the empire, and the law and cultural habits that were of that age. For many African countries those colonial laws are the basis of their current ones. Practically Sharia, everything that is not heterosexual women subject to man is forbidden and transgender as a consequence totally outlawed.

Culture also as in Cultural Feminism, maybe not literally as such, but the recognition that there is something as female values, and where does that come from if not from 'being' and thus the mind.

After that, biology in the medical sense, the brain is responsive to sex hormones, so it is equally possible that certain brains work better with hormones of a certain sex, thus testosteron for a trans men, and estrogen for a trans woman. I think that is plausible. Also how hormones affect the body growth in puberty (from which the notion of puberty blockers for trans children come, to not expose them to the body their minds do not agree with), so that part of transgender care for minors makes sense, provided it is applied to a transgender minor obviously

So as a whole I recognize transgender as something that is real, and that gender and being a 'man', or 'woman' in that sense is not only defined by genetics. Or in popular culture terms, I agree more with Emma Watson than with Mrs. Rowling

After some thinking she volunteered as a solution that the space did not matter so much as an agreement in respect, thus not together, after one another, literally 'leaving space for each other' and not 'forcing Vanessa out of a space'. I found it impressive how she came to that.

Is this paragraph saying that your daughter would be happy for Vanessa to use female single sex spaces as long as its not at the same time as her.

Hi,

I was over at Vanessa's place this weekend, with my kids.

Thing is, in some reactions when I mentioned her, I noticed people jumping to conclusions, also about my son, that he's manipulative or angry. What to say, obviously people here don't know him, else they'd know they'd got it all wrong. But also, despite some good information for which I am grateful, the reactions show that it may come with a bias.

Vanessa's parents are nice people, they're not pushing her, they're confronted with, in today's climate, a difficult situation. They feel being ostracized, and the stress it causes, to them to Vanessa.

It is that what makes my son angry, because it is unfair to her, and if he is aware of unfairness he comes up for those who are treaded unfair. That's why I mention he'd be angry with me, not because of opinion, but because he'd expect better of me. That's what he expects, that I would treat Vanessa as she is without prejudice and that is unrelated to the debate on 'spaces'

My daughter has also thought about it. For her, well if Vanessa is a girl, then that's who she is, but she's aware of the degrees of, as she called, 'perceiving as a girl'. She was clear that if Vanessa would transition all the way, of course she'd be welcome in the same spaces, but before that ... ... After some thinking she volunteered as a solution that the space did not matter so much as an agreement in respect, thus not together, after one another, literally 'leaving space for each other' and not 'forcing Vanessa out of a space'. I found it impressive how she came to that.

After talking to Vanessa's parents it was clear that the whole problem is theoretical, Vanessa's doesn't want to be seen by anyone, stress caused by dysphoria.

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (honestly!), I'm just musing - but it's not a bad thing to be asked 'you say you know, or believe, XYZ - why? What has led you to believe this?' - so much in life we have to just take things at face value or think 'that sounds like the sort of thing people with my values would believe' (immigrants good/bad, etc) without actually analysing 'how would I find out if this is actually the case? What if it's more complex than a black & white issue - what if I come to a conclusion that something is good in some circumstances and harmful in others?'

I think society would be far more harmonious if people were curious enough to ask themselves how to establish an evidence base for their beliefs (or just be open to thinking critically about it and not necessarily having to have an opinion on something!)

The advice to explain to my children that it they should think about themselves, how they are and not just copying (I also heard stories no teachers where the majority of the class apparently was), that is good

I would say, ask them to think about what it is THEY think differentiates men from women. If you're a boy and you think/feel a certain way, how do you know 'only girls think/are like that' if you're an example of a boy who thinks/feels that way too?

"the existence of transgenders, thus trans men and trans women is not put into question."

But what are 'trans men' and 'trans women'?

There are no neurological or biological markers for being 'transgender'. I think we have established this fact.

Therefore they are people with a philosophical belief that doesn't reflect material reality.

No one says those people don't exist.

But people are pointing out to you that just because someone has a philosophical belief about themselves, when it doesn't reflect material reality why does society comply to

linguistic demands

health care demands
and for inclusion demands when sex matters?

If you cannot answer this without resorting to an emotional reason, doesn't this concern you?

What other groups in society do we give priority to, and additional privileges to above everyone else's rights, based on a philosophical belief that doesn't reflect material reality?

Why do you think any society should be doing this?

:-) I just did that !

My thanks for your efforts !

Well, sorry then, the notion of 'evidence' rattled me. I was not expecting a day in court so to say ;-)

That said, I got a lot of useful links to other sources (SEGM), but to be frank, and this is in relation to my reaction on (deliberate) misgendering, it seems that everyone everywhere agrees to be very careful when it comes to transgender care for minors, but (in Europe at least) the existence of transgenders, thus trans men and trans women is not put into question.

On the other hand on media in general, it is much- much more coloured than that. Also here. When I mentioned Vince, now Vanessa, that I she was kind-of talked into that, my kids not visiting theirs. I don't get that.

The advice to explain to my children that it they should think about themselves, how they are and not just copying (I also heard stories no teachers where the majority of the class apparently was), that is good

Thank you for all the research and links - quite a few are new to me so I will endeavour to do some reading over the next couple of days. I was aware that the Dutch protocol had been held out as questionable due to it not being replicable however lots of other research to get through.

Not directly related to gender care but I came across this talk on The Origins of the DSM by Dr James Davies. Its about how the DSM was compiled by a very small task force and not particularly based on good medical evidence.

(DSM - US psychiatric diagnostic manual)

One small addition to @Helleofabore 's great set of posts: as well as the direct unfairness to women of opening up female single sex supports to male people, validating transgender identities is at heart a validation that the meaningful differences between men and women are mental not physical. That harms each and every one of us because it relegitimises all those discredited sexist ideas about women that men used to exclude us from having social, political and economic power.

Given the amount of work Helle's put in to provide all these links and evidence, you'd hope that poster doesn't do a 'evidence is sooo mean!!' and actually considers them properly.