Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Please hold my hand. My daughter has drunk the koolaid, and I’m more upset & angry than I think I have ever been. (SC ruling)

285 replies

MarvellousMonsters · 19/04/2025 13:08

This will be long, so I apologise in advance. I find myself in a grey area between radfems and woke-maidens. I don’t hate trans people, I don’t hate anyone, although as a woman in my 50s I’ve had enough male fuckwittery in my life to have a very low opinion of men in general. I do believe that there are some people with such intense dysphoria that counselling and support are not enough and surgical transition is their best solution, but I don’t believe anyone can change sex, or is born in the wrong body.

That said, I detest gender stereotypes and the confusion of sex & gender, I’m the generation of women that fought really hard on a day to day level to reject these stupid made up rules about what girls can and can’t do/wear/think, and seeing the ‘men in a dress’ become accepted as that meaning they are women is a huge step backwards, and it makes me furious.

I honestly don’t care who wears what, if a man wants to wear dresses and make up, that’s fine. I’ve spent the last 15-20 years in t-shirts and jeans, no make up etc, so I don’t see why men can’t wear skirts if they want to. As Eddie Izzard used to say, they aren’t women’s clothes, they are my clothes. (So disappointed that Eddie has now claimed to be Suzie)

I am not a dress.

I genuinely don’t care about sharing spaces like toilets, it’s possible to create safe unisex toilets, the focus on this is a distraction and needs to stop. But when men claim to identify as women and skew crime statistics, that bothers me. Men who claim to identify as women and try to insist that lesbians should date them, that’s controlling and gross. Hospital wards and bays are segregated for a reason, and demanding we use she/her pronouns doesn’t mean a man should be put in a bed in a women’s bay. Same with any communal changing area, be it the gym or a shop fitting room. Women don’t have a penis, it’s really that simple.

This morning the SC ruling was mentioned briefly and my adult daughter is furious with it. She claims it’s a step backwards, that it will cause hate crimes and violence towards trans people, that anyone who supports it is a hateful bigot and wishes harm on a vulnerable minority. I tried to calmly explain to her that no laws have been changed, only clarified, and that trans people haven’t lost any rights, nor will any MtF prisoners be immediately transferred to male prisons to be raped and murdered by the other prisoners. Women aren’t going to be randomly strip-searched by male police officers who will claim they thought it was a man, etc. She just refuses to believe that women’s safe spaces need to be just for actual biological women, because she believes trans women don’t pose a threat, and even when I explained that most trans identifying MtF don’t have surgery etc and are still fully functioning males, and showed her examples of MtF assaulting women, she won’t accept that the actions of these men mean that we should be able to hold safe spaces based on biology. I tried to explain that I understand that trans people are vulnerable to hate crimes etc, and that we need to take steps to keep them safe, but not at the expense of women. We’ve had a long and very heated argument where she has accused me of being a bigot and a bunch of other incredibly hurtful things, mostly by refusing to accept that there is a toxic sub-set of (mostly MtF) TRAs that are actually autogynephiles/INCELs with misogyny at their core, and that these people threaten actual physical harm to anyone (like JKR) who dares to question their claims of womanhood.

Help me. Help me find a way to reach her. She’s an intelligent educated young woman who has been raised with feminist values, I have modelled non-stereotypical behaviours and given her complete freedom to choose her direction in life, with no expectations or limitations based on her sex. I’m genuinely appalled to hear this garbage coming from her.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
5
NoIAmTheNewQueenofMN · 23/04/2025 23:48

MarvellousMonsters · 23/04/2025 18:03

Sorry, I’ve not run away, I’m struggling to catch up on all replies.

also, WTF has Trump and his tariffs got to do with any of this?

Some people on this thread equate gender critical views with fascism. And for them, fascism = Trump. 🙄

TangenitalContrivance · 23/04/2025 18:08

MarvellousMonsters · 23/04/2025 18:03

Sorry, I’ve not run away, I’m struggling to catch up on all replies.

also, WTF has Trump and his tariffs got to do with any of this?

Here with baited breath :)

genuinely hope those practical tips on how to actually change someone’s mind help you. I’m sure they will!

MarvellousMonsters · 23/04/2025 18:03

Sorry, I’ve not run away, I’m struggling to catch up on all replies.

also, WTF has Trump and his tariffs got to do with any of this?

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 23/04/2025 00:00

@Bookery, the UK definition is as follows (I am British):
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.
Trump does not fit that definition. He does not appear to believe in state control, but in unfettered capitalism with protectionism bolted on. He may disparage the Opposition but he shows no sign of attempting to ban it.
(Cambridge dictionary)

Grammarnut · 22/04/2025 23:51

Bookery · 22/04/2025 18:04

This thread is not about Trump's tariff policies, but:

Tariff wars don't work in the modern world.

The "Gilded Age" he keeps mentioning is not coming back.

His fixation on waging a tariff war began in his first term. How did that turn out? Did it actually benefit US consumers as he claimed? It didn't.

Trump is not a competent businessman either, but could be a good case study for those interested in business ethics (his businesses were involved in more than four thousand lawsuits, especially for fraud and other illegal financial practices).

https://fortune.com/2025/03/16/trump-tariffs-how-they-work-economy-recession-predictions/

If paywalled:
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=fortune.com/2025/03/16/trump-tariffs-how-they-work-economy-recession-predictions/

https://thehill.com/business/5121142-wall-street-journal-slams-trumps-tariff-plans-the-dumbest-trade-war-in-history/

Well, I didn't say he was. I was suggesting reasons why some people might agree with him. I am not absolute believer in free trade or liberalisation, both of which have damaged UK infrastructure.
Free trade is lovely when you are the country benefitting from it. Not so much fun if the EU is leaning on you to liberalise your infrastructure (privatise it) or is dumping produce on you, so that your own farmers cannot compete with prices and cease any sort of trading.
Like anything else, trade has to be regulated.

IBelieveinSomething · 22/04/2025 23:20

All of us just let them be. Because we are inured to it. We are female. Let males take over everything then. Agree to it. Let them be. I disagree.

IBelieveinSomething · 22/04/2025 23:15

Pigeon31 · 22/04/2025 16:32

On the other hand, I am a liberal.

There are plenty of views that I either disagree with or think are basically baseless but they're not invalid. People may believe things I disagree with (like you for example) but neither you nor I are the thought police. And I don't want to live in a country where anyone tries to control beliefs. If the acts they lead to are harmful then those can be restricted by law but again, if the law causes more harm than help then it can be changed.

All through history, autocrats have tried to control what people think and all through history, they have failed. You calling my beliefs invalid is pointless at best, and thought policing at worst.

But I tell you this -- whenever you walk out of your front door you may encounter people with beliefs you find odd or offensive, or who do things you dislike or find repugnant ... You can just let them be.

Edited

i am a liberal by nature. But I disagree with you.

Bookery · 22/04/2025 19:10

Bookery · 22/04/2025 18:29

According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:

  1. often Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

broadly : a philosophy or system with some combination of fascist values and governing structures

  1. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

—often used informally in an exaggerated way

"During his first six weeks in office, President Donald Trump has embarked on a dizzying teardown of the federal government and attacks on long-standing institutions in an attempt to increase his own authority.
He has pardoned those who attacked the U.S. Capitol to overturn his 2020 election loss, placed loyalists atop the FBI and military, and purged the Department of Justice, which dropped investigations against Trump allies. He declared control over independent agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, punished media outlets for coverage he dislikes and his allies suggested he could defy court orders."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-democracy-autocrats-authoritarian-constitution-threat-542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f

This article was written in March and the constitutional crisis in the US is showing no signs of stopping.

Trump is now defying court orders, including those issued by the US Supreme Court (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5256539-trump-administration-challenging-judiciary/). He has already reached a point that even centrist/right-leaning media outlets can't defend his actions.

He is silencing any possible attempts at opposition by threatening universities, law firms, and judges, and state governments that he believes are likely to stand up to him in any way.

He has a frightening lack of regard for checks and balances that underpin the US democracy.

He has suggested serving a third term despite being forbidden by the US Constitution to do so, and also suggested deporting Americans (US citizens) to a foreign country.

And these points are all just the tip of the iceberg.

He has unequivocally shown that he is autocratic. At what point would describing him as "fascist" be not an overreach?

Edited

To be clear, my use of "autocratic" is in line with the definition of the word by the Cambridge Dictionary: "demanding that people obey completely, without asking or caring about anyone else's opinions", which is what he is doing.

Bookery · 22/04/2025 18:29

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 11:40

I'm curious what history curriculum can include discussion of Trump as a fascist (he's not). Presumably WWII?

Edited

According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:

  1. often Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

broadly : a philosophy or system with some combination of fascist values and governing structures

  1. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

—often used informally in an exaggerated way

"During his first six weeks in office, President Donald Trump has embarked on a dizzying teardown of the federal government and attacks on long-standing institutions in an attempt to increase his own authority.
He has pardoned those who attacked the U.S. Capitol to overturn his 2020 election loss, placed loyalists atop the FBI and military, and purged the Department of Justice, which dropped investigations against Trump allies. He declared control over independent agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, punished media outlets for coverage he dislikes and his allies suggested he could defy court orders."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-democracy-autocrats-authoritarian-constitution-threat-542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f

This article was written in March and the constitutional crisis in the US is showing no signs of stopping.

Trump is now defying court orders, including those issued by the US Supreme Court (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5256539-trump-administration-challenging-judiciary/). He has already reached a point that even centrist/right-leaning media outlets can't defend his actions.

He is silencing any possible attempts at opposition by threatening universities, law firms, and judges, and state governments that he believes are likely to stand up to him in any way.

He has a frightening lack of regard for checks and balances that underpin the US democracy.

He has suggested serving a third term despite being forbidden by the US Constitution to do so, and also suggested deporting Americans (US citizens) to a foreign country.

And these points are all just the tip of the iceberg.

He has unequivocally shown that he is autocratic. At what point would describing him as "fascist" be not an overreach?

Definition of AUTOCRATIC

of, relating to, or being an autocracy : absolute; characteristic of or resembling an autocrat : despotic… See the full definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocratic

Bookery · 22/04/2025 18:04

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 10:54

She may be thinking of his EO re transwomen in women's spaces (good thing) and protectionism. Absolute free trade is damaging to a country's growing industries in some cases, for example, tariffs are used to protect them. Trump is a business man when all is said and done - he probably knows the effects of absolute free trade (and we can look round the UK at soaring energy prices compared to e.g. France where energy companies are state owned).

Edited

This thread is not about Trump's tariff policies, but:

Tariff wars don't work in the modern world.

The "Gilded Age" he keeps mentioning is not coming back.

His fixation on waging a tariff war began in his first term. How did that turn out? Did it actually benefit US consumers as he claimed? It didn't.

Trump is not a competent businessman either, but could be a good case study for those interested in business ethics (his businesses were involved in more than four thousand lawsuits, especially for fraud and other illegal financial practices).

https://fortune.com/2025/03/16/trump-tariffs-how-they-work-economy-recession-predictions/

If paywalled:
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=fortune.com/2025/03/16/trump-tariffs-how-they-work-economy-recession-predictions/

https://thehill.com/business/5121142-wall-street-journal-slams-trumps-tariff-plans-the-dumbest-trade-war-in-history/

Trump claims tariffs will make the U.S. 'rich again.' But 5 undisputed facts about how they work throw cold water on that notion

A deep analysis of how tariffs work bodes poorly for U.S. economic growth.

https://fortune.com/2025/03/16/trump-tariffs-how-they-work-economy-recession-predictions/

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/04/2025 17:22

Pigeon31 · 22/04/2025 16:32

On the other hand, I am a liberal.

There are plenty of views that I either disagree with or think are basically baseless but they're not invalid. People may believe things I disagree with (like you for example) but neither you nor I are the thought police. And I don't want to live in a country where anyone tries to control beliefs. If the acts they lead to are harmful then those can be restricted by law but again, if the law causes more harm than help then it can be changed.

All through history, autocrats have tried to control what people think and all through history, they have failed. You calling my beliefs invalid is pointless at best, and thought policing at worst.

But I tell you this -- whenever you walk out of your front door you may encounter people with beliefs you find odd or offensive, or who do things you dislike or find repugnant ... You can just let them be.

Edited

I'm not thought policing in the slightest.

Anyone who believes that there are both female women and male women and that what the male women want takes priority over what the female women want is entitled to hold that belief, just as they are entitled to belong to other misogynistic religions.

But I don't have to respect that belief, and I'm glad the Supreme Court treated that belief with as much respect as it deserves.

And I don't have to do you the courtesy of calling that belief feminism, when it is the literal opposite.

It's hilarious that you've just called those who disagree with you autocratic, apparently without the slightest trace of irony. Come back to me with a list of real feminists who have tried to get people like you fired or cancelled for your beliefs and then we'll talk.

Pigeon31 · 22/04/2025 16:32

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 13:27

Yes, well, male people with transgender identities prefer the term "women", but they are not women, just like liberal feminists are not feminists.

And I happen to think that the beliefs of women who think that the interests of male people with transgender identities are more important than the interests of female people are less valid than mine. Don't we all, to a certain extent, think that?

If I thought someone else's beliefs were more valid than mine I would share them.

On the other hand, I am a liberal.

There are plenty of views that I either disagree with or think are basically baseless but they're not invalid. People may believe things I disagree with (like you for example) but neither you nor I are the thought police. And I don't want to live in a country where anyone tries to control beliefs. If the acts they lead to are harmful then those can be restricted by law but again, if the law causes more harm than help then it can be changed.

All through history, autocrats have tried to control what people think and all through history, they have failed. You calling my beliefs invalid is pointless at best, and thought policing at worst.

But I tell you this -- whenever you walk out of your front door you may encounter people with beliefs you find odd or offensive, or who do things you dislike or find repugnant ... You can just let them be.

WhatterySquash · 21/04/2025 15:54

FlirtsWithRhinos · 21/04/2025 15:15

What about Black people who want spaces for Black people only, like a meeting to discuss experiences racism, maybe a lobby group to promote better consultation of Black groups by Parliament? Is that also wrong?

Edited

There are literary awards, grants, scholarships, jobs etc that are only for black people. Do you think that's wrong? Or maybe that white people should be able to help themselves to them all by just saying "I'm black"? No?

[edited to say, I am adding another response to the post you reacted to Flirts sorry it looks like I'm responding to you! did that a bit wrong]

FlirtsWithRhinos · 21/04/2025 15:15

Mumble12 · 21/04/2025 12:10

None. I think both rights can be supported at once without one taking prevalence over the other. I think rapists, molesterers and abusers are the problem, not trans people.

White people fighting to keep spaces for whites only didn’t think they were wrong either

Edited

What about Black people who want spaces for Black people only, like a meeting to discuss experiences racism, maybe a lobby group to promote better consultation of Black groups by Parliament? Is that also wrong?

PoppySeedBagelRedux · 21/04/2025 13:30

MarvellousMonsters · 19/04/2025 13:20

This is encouraging to hear, thank you

Mine too!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 13:27

Pigeon31 · 19/04/2025 14:23

She's a liberal feminist. You don't have to agree with her on everything but you should be proud of having raised a daughter who is willing to stand up for her beliefs, which are no less valid than yours.

Also we prefer liberal feminist to woke maiden, thx.

Yes, well, male people with transgender identities prefer the term "women", but they are not women, just like liberal feminists are not feminists.

And I happen to think that the beliefs of women who think that the interests of male people with transgender identities are more important than the interests of female people are less valid than mine. Don't we all, to a certain extent, think that?

If I thought someone else's beliefs were more valid than mine I would share them.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 21/04/2025 12:29

MarvellousMonsters · 19/04/2025 13:42

Her reasoning was that we should accept trans women into our spaces so that they are safe. She couldn’t/wouldn’t accept that the fact that some of those fully male bodied trans women pose a threat to women means that we needs a third space. He argument was those third spaces don’t exist so we need to keep them with women, and that segregation is wrong

If segregation is wrong, does that mean she's completely happy to use the gents? I suggest that she would be wiser not to use the gents - the risk of assault if she does may be low, but it is significant. Can she recognise that "segregation" safeguards people?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 12:26

PS @Mumble12 your apartheid analogy is offensive and doesn't work.

Racial segregation was about keeping the oppressed class (black people) away from the class of oppressors (white people). There was no moral justification for this.

Single sex spaces for women are largely about giving the oppressed class a place of safety and sanctuary from their oppressors. (Although in reality I think most people of both sexes prefer single sex toilets and changing rooms for privacy reasons.)

In this case the oppressed class are female people and the oppressors are male people. By insisting on the inclusion of trans women you are taking that safe space away from the class of oppressed people by allowing people from the class of oppressors into it. So it's not the same as racial segregation at all.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 12:14

Mumble12 · 21/04/2025 12:10

None. I think both rights can be supported at once without one taking prevalence over the other. I think rapists, molesterers and abusers are the problem, not trans people.

White people fighting to keep spaces for whites only didn’t think they were wrong either

Edited

But the people celebrating the Supreme Court decision think that too. Trans people's rights and women's rights are equally important and can and should both be supported without one taking precedence over the other.

The people complaining about the Supreme Court decision are effectively complaining because they have been told that trans people's rights are not more important than women's rights. And that if you try to meet trans women's needs and women's needs in the same space then it is no longer a single sex space and the women's needs are no longer being met.

I think that if you have not read and understood the judgment, you should read and understand it before you decry it as a miscarriage of justice. And if you have read and understood it and you still disagree, you believe women's rights are less important than trans people's.

So obviously the people protesting this judgment are wrong.

Mumble12 · 21/04/2025 12:10

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 11:44

In fairness, I have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that I might be wrong about women's rights being just as important as trans women's.

How much thought do you think I should be giving this before I am allowed to dismiss it as misogynistic nonsense?

None. I think both rights can be supported at once without one taking prevalence over the other. I think rapists, molesterers and abusers are the problem, not trans people.

White people fighting to keep spaces for whites only didn’t think they were wrong either

Shortshriftandlethal · 21/04/2025 11:50

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 11:40

I'm curious what history curriculum can include discussion of Trump as a fascist (he's not). Presumably WWII?

Edited

I think the lesson was about the rise of Hitler and fascism in Germany...and the teacher made a link to the upcoming American election and Donald Trump.....the lesson was just before the american election when all the talk was about fascism and Trump was accused of being a fascist etc

My daughter says the teacher was young, naive, and her history knowledge was not very good,

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 11:44

Mumble12 · 20/04/2025 10:46

What’s wrong with it is that people are assuming their children can’t have any thoughts of their own. And that you must be right and they only disagree with you because they’ve been conditioned by outside sources.

no thought for the fact that you could be wrong, or conditioned by your surrounding influences.

It gives off very “silly little girl doesn’t know what she means” vibes.

In fairness, I have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that I might be wrong about women's rights being just as important as trans women's.

How much thought do you think I should be giving this before I am allowed to dismiss it as misogynistic nonsense?

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 11:40

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/04/2025 11:54

There are many people who have come out of a university education, in recent decades, which has been steeped in Intersectionalism, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory, and they then enter into profesions in which they have influential roles.

There are some teachers at my daughter's school ( she is also a teacher) who blatantly further and push their own political agendas - in the guise of education. My daughter witnessed this in a history lesson recently, in which the new, young NQT was pushing value judgements about 'kindness' and 'inclusivity' and making negative political comment about Donald Trump and fascism etc........

My daughter says she bit her lip, but was pleased to see the young teacher got some push back from some pupils.....who countered some of her biased presentations with their own observations and thoughts. The NQT didn't quite know what to do with the push-back...and moved quickly on.

Edited

I'm curious what history curriculum can include discussion of Trump as a fascist (he's not). Presumably WWII?

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 11:26

ElliesPantry · 19/04/2025 16:57

Then you should remember that gay people were deemed to be mentally ill and in need of conversion treatment. Along with all the other marginalised groups who have been treated abominably and hatefully over the decades. Trans people deserve the same respect and kindness that is now given to those other people. The downright nastiness against trans people on this board in general takes my breath away. If this was my daughter I would be so proud of her for being so open hearted and kind. But I know it is pointless to have any view except hate on trans people on here so don't all bother to pile on because I see you, I've read you.

I don't hate trans people. However, there is no comparison with gays or lesbians, who are same sex attracted. Sexual attraction is a fact we can see, being trans is not, it's a feeling about something the person feeling it can know nothing about. How can a man feel like a woman? And gays and lesbians are particularly affected by this 'feels' idea. Both groups have been prevented from having same sex groupings and have been told that they are body fetishists for refusing to have sexual relationships with transpeople. Lesbians in particular (but also gay men) have been called bigots for saying they are same sex attracted, not same gender!

Grammarnut · 21/04/2025 11:16

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request