Cataclysmic to one's faith in institutions. Government, media, NHS, artists, academics. All coming out with the same startling stuff, and worse, joining in the vociferous attacks on women who dare to question or disagree.

Yes, they really did. A lot. As you’ve been told by many different people but you keep correcting us or admonishing us that we need to pay attention to this “new tactic” that’s been going on for some years.

Again, it’s not new, it’s just something you yourself hadn’t seen.

If rigid gender roles are bad and gender being more fluid (ie less defined and less constrained) is a good thing, can you explain why we even need to label anyone by their gender? Surely the better end goal is for it not to be a thing at all - just sex and personalities?

After all, there's no real reason why pink tutus and not being into football should be especially associated with each other. It's not just the "pink stuff is for girls, blue stuff is for boys" that is arbitrary, but the whole grouping of stuff under pink or blue in the first place.

I feel a bit left behind by all of this - so this is my thinking:

Sex is biological and predisposes human to certain things within society (but not entirely), and sex is not something anyone can ever fully change

Gender is largely constructed by the patriarchal society we live in but is becoming more fluid and generally we see this as a good thing right? As in more equality on what men vs woman can do and vice versa

So there are biological men/women and trans women/men, and its fine to define everyone as such?

And it wasn't just media talking nonsense - our own Prime Minister was doing it too!

I think we have been observing 'peaking' in real time on this thread. When it hits you it does make a big impact. It's no wonder that OP is incredulous if she is hearing this for the first time.

Imagine going back to the time when we were originally reading about all this but not allowed to talk about it.

I can remember being in a complete panic about it at some points because it did seem that no-one online or in the media was talking sense.

Maybe read back some of your posts @DiamondThrone and look at how often you've admonished and criticised posterswho've responded to you? Many of us have been involved in this for many years and have tried to explain that what you've suddenly discovered is not new.

Dr Upton said in court that he was a woman and not a robot so therefore he was a biological woman.

This is not new. They have been saying stuff like this for years.

"Which is a new tactic, since the Supreme Court ruling."

Please listen because you are flogging a dead horse:

IT. IS. NOT. A. NEW. TACTIC. SINCE. THE. SUPREME. COURT. RULING.

"They" have been saying this since before Reddit existed and before the internet existed.

Yes, it might well be the latest ridiculous argument that a bunch of dweebs on Reddit are pulling out of their arses but honestly, it is not at all surprising because it is not new in the slightest.

Honestly, this is no big surprise that will catch us all off guard. They have a whole rotting rucksack of mad "science" notions that they unearth and fling about from time to time.

This video by Mr Menno was uploaded in 2023 and includes an example of the delusion, or "tactic", from lawyer Robin "Somatically Female" White, as well as India Willoughby and other men claiming that they are female.

Also, it is a funny video 😂

Somatically Female (He's a man!) 🎶

ETA: Note the Cyclist using a ludicrous argument to claim that he is "biologically female". These ridiculous claims are depressingly familiar.

It certainly does not date from the Supreme Court ruling. The prevailing arguments vacillate between "sex is very complicated and with hormone treatment men can become biological women" and "of course we never said that people can literally change sex", depending on what they are responding to and the current climate, but the claims that men are biological women go back many years unfortunately.

Yes, he’s been saying that for years too. This isn’t new, @DiamondThrone , it’s just new to you.

I’m happy to be gender critical as a 2nd wave feminist. Sex fixed, gender changes from society to society. It is an externally imposed system of demands, expectations, stereotypes and prohibitions. Dismantling gender norms is part of feminism to me.

I actually thought of doing this to verify my claim, but laziness won out. 😳 Glad to see MN keeping me honest. 😅

None of this is new. India Willoughby was calling himself a 'cis woman', said he had a cervix, etc. It's a load of nonsense.

Off the top of my head... In terms of getting the gist of Butler's theory and its implications in GI Kathleen Stock’s "Material Girl" is excellent. To understand Butler's theory in the context of postmodern thought Helen Pluckrose's Cynical Theory covers a lot of ground. Andrew Doyle talks about the impact of postmodernism on politics especially in respect to woke and DEI, and talks a bit about Butler in his book "The New Puritans". Joyce also mentions Butler in "Trans".

"From exclusionary definitions of womanhood in healthcare and law, to attacks on inclusive safeguarding practices in prisons, schools, and shelters, the long-term effect of this anti-trans lobbying is to strip away legal recognition and practical support for all women".

You have to feel sorry for them. There's no fake news they won't use in a frantic attempt to persuade others that women's rights to safety & privacy from men and safeguarding children is somehow bigoted and unreasonable. 😂

They're just flailing around trying to find mud to throw, but all they have is hot air.

I had a helpful Women's Studies 101 type book back in the 90s, I'll try and find it. It will be a useful view about how these ideas were seen pre-TRA revisioning.

I just used google's ngram to see what terms have been used historically, and this backs up what you've said. From the 60s until the early 80s, 'sex stereotype' was the preferred term, then it switched to 'gender stereotype'. So for most of my adult life, 'gender stereotype' has been more commonly used (which is why I viewed it as the standard term). People seem to have become much more squeamish about using the word 'sex' in this sort of context.

Thanks, that's really useful. I was considering reading one of Butler's books the other day for better context, but perhaps something that sites it within other feminist discourse might be more productive and less infuriating.

Could you rec a good, relatively objective text?

It's brilliant sunlight.

Most people will baulk at the notion of the female penis.