Trans sibling in law

Apologies for forgetting that, my bad.

I have a Little Miss [insert nickname of my football team] mug in the cupboard. The picture has pigtails and a football kit. It must be a very confused mug!

She's not a woman. She's a maggot. Ask Juno.

They’d tell the woman prisoner to just ignore his male body, and then ignore her whilst they over intellectualised the shit out of it.

I think I can manage some creative writing. It might even get me an opinion piece in the Guardian.

Well it hasn’t helped you has it?

Our spaces aren't relevant no. But our sons/fathers/husbands are. No, they aren't at the same risk from TM as we are from TW. But my sons don't want female bodies in their single sex spaces either. My gay son doesn't want to be told he should date TM as TMAM. My young niece doesn't need to be told that she is actually a boy because she's hates pink/dancing/gymnastics and wants to play rugby. These are things that have happened BTW.

You would only pass if you could successfully pretend to believe in all the magical bullshit.

Even a hint of sanity would result in an instant fail and probable expulsion from your course.

This thread has been extremely eye opening

I did a module in Women's Studies in 1998. At this point I suspect I could pass a whole degree in Gender Studies tomorrow given the standard of arguments on display in this thread.

Lots have. Universities are struggling to put backsides on seats in the traditional humanities like English and History, let alone in niche topics which sprung up in the 80s and 90s boom. Social Science in general has seen a similar downturn and Philosophy has seen umpteen departmental closures over the past five years. Subjects like this were artificially inflated to meet Blair's 50% targets in the noughties, because they're cheap to teach. Now they're shrinking back to where they were.

A good many academics wouldn't touch 'gender' in today's context if you paid them to. As for bringing it into the classroom, that is simply asking for trouble.

I think this poster understands very well, whether they’re attempting to be provocative or perverse I don’t know.

We all believe that.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that because of that, women have to open their same sex spaces and services to men. The rest of us don't agree with that.

Women are entitled to achieve whatever they desire in life, but also maintain their boundaries from men where that is beneficial to their health, security, dignity, achievements, etc.

Women standing up for their rights to single sex spaces in prisons/hospitals/domestic violence centres has got absolutely nothing to do with them being rocket scientists and CEOs.

Not sure what you mean by ‘flying rockets’, but if you mean being an astronaut, not doing that without access to contraception.

You can have a 50/50 relationship with a male partner, but he isn’t going to do the gestating and breast feeding of any babies,

On a very practical level, male mammals, whether horse or human, don’t have to stick around at all after conception. The relationships board might be enlightening

It depends whether they are sexists or merely sex realists. Sexists assume that sex comes (and should come) umbilically attached to a load of stereotypical gendered baggage about masculinity and femininity.
Sex realists recognise merely that sex is a physical reality which needs to be acknowledged and accommodated in certain situations. Various gendered baggage gets attached to sex by society, and internalised by individuals, or rejected by individuals, but it is not a unified stable entity called "gender".

Do you think we think those things are to do with biology? A complete non sequitur.

There are situations where it matters and others it doesn’t.

Those who reject trans people in all walks of life, aren’t following this ethos though are they.

OP’s in law for example is FTM, our spaces aren’t even relevant to this specific discussion, if anything she’d be leaving them. So what odds does it make to anyone here whether someone calls her a man or a woman. There is absolutely no risk attached to this specific post, yet still - the same old conversation.

🤣 quite. There is no doubt some legit research paper on gender in the Mr Man universe.

Why is that definition of “woman” constraining?

It doesn’t constrain me, or any other biological woman. Doesn’t stop me wearing anything or doing anything.

I've already got the Mr Men and Little Miss series of books in the house so I'm ahead of the game on that reading list.

Because I believe that women can fly rockets, work in management positions, have 50/50 relationships and household dynamics (for example) and that all of that has absolutely nothing to do with their basic biology?

I should say, it’s not a thing independent of the concept of sex so I don’t have to respect the existence of sex stereotypes.

It’s my personal opinion, and has a lot of evidence to back it up. I didn’t even say they all were. I said that was something that is not the same as a stereotype imposed on a woman by society. Interesting that you knew exactly what I was referring to despite some other disingenuous posts you've made, though.

I agree that @SleeplessInWherever doesmt seem to be able to tell the difference between sexism and sex realism.

I really don’t understand this.

Are you not reading the post?

It doesn’t matter whether you want sex to be limiting. If you are a woman and you live in a country where there is no access to contraception, you are limited.

Again, have you not come across the concept of indirect discrimination?

Similarly, women depend on maternity leave, but can also suffer discrimination because it is assumed that they might take maternity leave. Pretending sex doesn’t exist doesn't change this.