Men in women’s groups.

Maybe you could try explaining in words because, no, your point is not clear.

These are the personality traits you listed as corresponding to women.

The point is that trans women are men. They are literally no different to other men.

Whaaat?

Let me try to break it down for you using small words.

In what way is someone who is biologically male and does not have any of the following personality traits:

very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual

a woman?

Surely they fail according to every possible definition of womanhood. Both the biological definition that we favour and the bullshit behavioural definition that you favour.

Good lord, anyone who menstruates knows that our biology influences our emotions!

But society determines how we express them, what we feel able to act on and what we do not.

Behaviours do not fit neatly into male and female groups.

However, our culture has overlaid strong messages that influence how we see themselves, how we behave and how we relate to the opposite sex.

These mean that at the population level, women have better outcomes if they have spaces without men, both for safety and to engage in dialogue with each other without fitting it around men's needs and reactivity.

Many men, trans woman on not, feel excluding all men based on behaviours at the population level is unfair to them because they don't believe they align with the behaviours that women find threatening or constraining.

These men are failing to understand that women, due to our own socialisation, often find their presence intimidating or limiting anyway.

As a woman I believe very strongly that the benefit to women of excluding all men in some circunstances, and of having language that is sex-specific that can underpin legal rights, social converstaion and cultural and academic insight and analysis is more important than the benefit to a few men of being included.

HTH

…

But they are not outliers. They are males. Males commit something like 98% of sexual violence. Giving them a different label doesn't change that.

I’m still not getting an answer.

It is very telling.

Do you know why I don’t wear dresses @Howseitgoin ? Because it makes me more vulnerable to rape than trousers with buttons and/or a zip.

And the only people in uk law who can rape are those in possession of a penis.

Seriously? Ever heard of Rosemary West? 😂

Outliers existing are irrelevant to the average.

I belong to a women's group and I really hope this doesn't happen to ours. In any case, it makes no sense to include trans women and not include men. If that happened to my group, I would leave.

The law in the United Kingdom doesn’t allow men into women’s single sex spaces.

A trans woman is a man. They’re not allowed into women’s single sex spaces.

what more is there for debate?

If you don’t like it, campaign to change the law.

In other words you have no evidence to dispute the fact that freedom doesn't change nature…

I don’t wear dresses. I must be male.

"I'm saying they are socialised to do so. Which is a subconscious forcing.
Ask any mother how her child's tastes and preferences changed when the child started school and peer acceptance became important."

Are you seriously suggesting women don't know their own minds? They are incapable of making a preference without social coercion? They lack any autonomy Monkey see monkey do? My god…

You do know its a well trotted out trope by the patriarchal faithful that women were 'brainwashed' into feminism. Oh wait…

Gosh, that old chestnut. You really do use the MRA playbook don't you 😂

I'm talking about centuries, millenia even, of culture. The books we read, the stories we tell each other, images of men and women that haven't changed that much from frescos on churches to characters in modern soap operas.

It's not about whether society's laws are more equal/egalitarian, it's about how individuals' self images and expectations are shaped, how they affects how we see ourselves and each other and the way that constrains the possibilities we allow for ourselves.

Would you care to answer the question about whether you think Karen White and Sarah Jane Baker share these feminine personality traits with women?

When we talk about male violence, it's based on hard data. If you want to take that to mean that gendered behaviour is somehow biological, feel free. But it does mean that trans identifying men, whose offending pattern remains male, are still just men whichever way you look at it.

And that's fine, but they'll have to accept that people they don't agree with are representing them, largely to their detriment.

Resist what and in what way?

Have you read the literature on rape and the shut down response? I fought as hard as I could. I still got raped. And sexually assaulted. I broke one of my fingers trying to get away. I bit him. I searched him. I kicked him. I tried my fucking best to stop him. And because he is a man and bigger and stronger than me it wasn’t enough. And that goes for all men. Any of them would be capable of overpowering me by virtue of their sex.

How victim blaming of you. I don’t know how these sort of posts are allowed to stand.

I feel a genuine serious threat when any man I don’t know is in my company, and very often even in groups with men I know. That will never leave me.

Nowhere is safe for me anymore. Not even my own home. I have cameras. Upgraded locks. A dog in the bed. A spray on the beside table. And it’s not enough.

Who are you to decide if my assessment of threat is “genuine”? Who made you the one to determine that?

Ahhh so now you are admitting behaviour is biologically influenced. Progress!!!

The law protecting women's right to single sex provisions does not permit for the group to wonder whether this particular man is lovely or whether the women want to. The SC judgment explains it clearly.

Women are allowed to be apart from men.
A thing is either single sex or its not. Cake and eating it too is not a thing.

End of, really.

Yes. Plenty of men are. But unfortunately enough of them are not to cause problems for women (and for other men as well)

This is why we have single sex protections.

If you believe women-only protections are simply not needed then make that case. That is at least logical. But making the case for a special subset of men that have not been provded to be any less violent, sexually agressive or simply entitled than the general male population makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes but its also true that if people feel a genuine serious threat they would be more likely to resist. Perhaps having met the person they don't.

Humans are capable of managing our nature.

Socalisation is what gives men the excuse not to.