Help me argue that What it Feels Like For a Girl doesn't prove terfs are wrong

Self Id means it’s impossible to gather correct statistics though

men who identify as women will be counted as women in these countries making statistics a complete nonsense

in fact what you might see is a strange increase in the number of ‘women’
committing sexual assault

Worth saying that you started where she is now but as you’ve seen what self ID has done to women you became less sympathetic - which isn’t the same as hatred.

Won't she just come back with the commonly quoted statistics showing that there has been no increase in sexual assault in the countries that already have self ID?

(I can't speak for the accuracy of said figures but I've defo seen them quoted a fair few times).

@KnottyAuty

Here is a thread about it with more evidence

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5266421-stonewall-change-definition-of-transphobia-questioning-gender-identity-ok-now

It might be worth just asking questions and trying to understand her point of view - just because it so baffling - but with the emphasis on the effects on women. Why does she think TWAW is good for women? What will women gain from it? What will the effects on women be if they no longer exist as a legal class? It’s probably difficult to do without what I once saw brilliantly described as ‘phallic drift’ - that the conversation keeps turning back to the poor, vulnerable men.

Her empathy is only extending towards males, in this instance, though.

I think she’s no different to a lot of “allies”, it baffles me that such ostensibly intelligent people can be so blinkered but meh

The demand of trans activists is that physiological sex should be erased as a social and political concept and be replaced with gender identity. So it’s not just about accommodating a small group of people - it affects everyone. I would ask her what the effect on the women she works with would be if sex didn’t exist as a concept? Would it make their lives better or worse ? I think some women believe that ending sex will end sex discrimination but I reckon that it will carry on regardless and indeed get worse, because women are and will continue to be discriminated against because of their reproductive physiology. If that isn’t recognised and their rights to define themselves and advocate for themselves are removed, how are they to defend themselves? I expect that she will protest and say that nobody is saying that but there is plenty of evidence that they are- sports, hospitals, prisons etc. What does she think TWAW means if not that? Good luck! Am rehearsing my own arguments for a similar conversation.

Understanding that sex matters and no one can change sex is NOT an ideology.

So no you don’t have that right. You couldn’t be more wrong.

I agree with you about feminism. I was only saying that if OP wants to engage with friend, then watching it and understanding what it's really about - horrific abuse - would be useful.

The material she suggested was a televised version of a work of fiction.

Being clear that men cannot turn into women is not dismissing anyone.

It is simply stating facts.

Gender critical feminism doesn't "dismiss trans people".

It just doesn't agree that the world should revolve around them.

So, just so I'm clear on this, you are by your own admission a long-time dedicant to an ideology that dismisses trans people, you met a woman who is, again by your own admission, an expert in her field with what sounds to be an impressive resume, you point blank refuse to make any effort to engage with the material she has suggested, and now you are asserting that she is the radical who needs educating. Do I have that right?

He was the victim of abuse which probably explains a lot. What explains more is that he apparently has never understood he was the victim of abuse.

I think that is often the case. Particularly with men. Maybe an aspect of toxic masculinity, admitting that you were a victim is seen as admitting weakness, so they'd rather tough it out and 'never did me any harm'.

And some, sadly, will continue the cycle of abuse as perpetrators themselves. Being vulnerable and a victim themself does not make someone safe for other people. Sometimes it can make them more dangerous because they have not learned normal boundaries.

See also Peter Tatchell and his friends who said it never did them any harm to be abused by adult men as alarmingly young children. Tatchell should know better than to propagate that narrative whatever the victims say.

I know I'm like a broken record, but people can be vulnerable and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are harmless, or blameless, and it certainly doesn't mean if a man is vulnerable that he is entitled to women's spaces, services, or even sympathy.

I don;t have a list but this article goes in to it.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/stonewall-changes-transphobia-definition/#:~:text=Sometime%20in%20January%20Stonewall%20updated,its%20definition%20of%20%E2%80%9Ctransphobia%E2%80%9D.

The “vulnerable” label always gets me. How is RMW or SJB vulnerable?

I can if two reasons why it’s used:

• from folks who just feel sorry for them in a deeply patronising way. It makes them feel better to be seen to support people that they pity
• to shut down the (inconvenient) conversation. How dare you evil bigoted hags use facts! Don’t you know that these are the most vulnerable and most marginalised people!!!!

It might explain a lot about him, and I hope the perpetrators were (or will be) brought to justice and the victim has been given support. But it's completely irrelevant to the question of 'the TERF position'.

A man having been abused doesn't undermine feminism.

A man having been abused doesn't alter women's rights or needs.

A man having been abused doesn't mean he's become a woman.

But why would women be sympathetic to men who want to invade our spaces and mock us with their cos-play outfits?

Hm. I'd say that paper was more nuanced than 'not that big an issue'.

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239

'Around half of participants took contrasting positions, being sceptical of the authenticity of the transitions transgender people were making. Importantly, some participants took both positions, often in reference to different transgender women they had lived with during their sentence. This complicates the ways in which transgender women were viewed by the participants and indicates the lack of agency the participants had in relation to the people they lived with in prison, something that affects all people in custody. Some participants in this study felt threatened by what they viewed as men living within their living spaces, attitudes that are aligned to gender-critical positions.'

And the author also noted:

'My positionality as a cis-male, and—at the time—a member of SPS staff was brought into focus during a number of interviews. For example, Hannah wasn’t sure if she could say what she was saying and suggests an apprehension to share more gender-critical views. This will have had an impact on the extent to which other participants might have felt able to express particular views about transgender people in this study.'

It's a decent paper, I thought. Thoughtfully written. Although it is effectively anecdata.

Apparently so, because of the hurty feelz or something.

Then why did they apologise to the two women who reported him? You’re not really thinking this through. I think you’ve drunk too much Stonewall kool aid.

This person broke the law. Are we just supposed to ignore that?

Men aren’t allowed to use the single sex facilities of women. The barrister you are referring to is a very obvious man. He shouldn’t have been in the women’s toilets. I am not understanding why you seem unable to grasp that fact.