How did we get here?

And around we go again.

Hormones and surgery do not change male cues that female people use to distinguish sex. If you don’t understand that skeletal cues, gait, movement of leverage points, skull shape and so many other aspects that male people can’t change with hormones or surgery once these are developed and discernible with interaction and fully clothed. And even the distance between nose plus lips, tilt of eyes are rarely changed with surgery. Hair is a huge give away, and wigs are too.

Not to mention that over time much of that surgery may have to be redone as faces change with age, but how many male people will go and do it again which would be a different ‘tell’.

You have been over reliant on puberty blockers for male people across the threads. I will just keep reminding you that puberty blockers rarely make a genetically looking male face look female. And retains other male body cues. Puberty blockers also depend on when they are given, and usually they are not given before testosterone has already made changes. However, it does seem to be that you are now trying to use very rare puberty blocked boys to prop up your weak and flawed theory about using personality traits to correctly identify a person’s sex.

Just because you, personally, seem to have so much trouble correctly identifying a person’s sex through observation and interaction doesn’t make your experience the universal one.

Look mate. You can scold all you like. Woman have said no. The law has said no. Men are not allowed into female spaces no matter how prettily they dress. No. It’s a complete sentence and it means no. Surely you learned about consent before?

So are you saying all those TRA threatening to kill, rape and attack women are actually going to do those things if women keep saying no? So all those signs encouraging people to “kill TERFS” are really really bad and that’s the dehumanising language youre talking about? PHEW. For a hot minute I was thinking you were saying women saying no to men was the problem. I’m so glad you condemn threats towards women. It helps to know men are on our side.

Or that women should have to give up their legal right to single sex services because men demand it?

I see we're getting the increasingly desperate repetitions of 'there's no harm!!! Lesbians...erm....workplace spaces where women aren't in a state of undress....erm, nothing to see here!!!!' from Hows, with a wee allusion to women's 'entitlement' thrown in.

As said before, classic incel arguments.

Anyone convinced that men are women yet?

Fair enough, I appreciate your limitations on male/female distinctions in more populated areas.

Here's a question for you given you sound like some one in more in tune with nature. Do you you really think that given the human body evolved for purposes of reproduction that wouldn't implicate that the mind did too?

I said I live in a rural part of Wales where there are no big cities. In my opinion big cities are things to be avoided and I have no interest in 'women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores'.

An assessment of all the factors I mentioned obviously.

Women have told you that they don't want to share public toilets and other women-only spaces with men, no matter how those men identify. Some women experience discomfort from the presence of males in those spaces. Some experience fear. These are harms.

By this logic it's also 'harmful' for men & women to work together particularly when they are alone which is often the case. See where this logic goes?

"Some men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' have harmed women or girls in women's toilets. Katie Dolatowski for example, who sexually assaulted a girl in a supermarket toilet."

Err It's already illegal to harm people & no one is suggesting that law change. Allowing trans people to share bathrooms with women isn't legalising assault its legalising sharing a bathroom.

Lesbians sexually offend at higher rates than straight women are you suggesting they too shouldn't have access to women's bathrooms?

Substantially more women are assaulted in the workplace so are you suggesting that justifies separate work spaces there too?

Oh wait…

You didn't answer the question. How do you know if he's a man or a transwoman?

Denial factor = 1000%

Yup I live in a big city that I'm sure exist in Wales. And like all big cities we have these things called 'women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores' that if didn't exist anymore would send Western economies spiralling.

Women have told you that they don't want to share public toilets and other women-only spaces with men, no matter how those men identify. Some women experience discomfort from the presence of males in those spaces. Some experience fear. These are harms.

Some men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' have harmed women or girls in women's toilets. Katie Dolatowski for example, who sexually assaulted a girl in a supermarket toilet.

But men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' are not harmed by continuing to use men's toilets.

My comment was including sartorial presentation among other things like morphology & skin. IE the whole package.

The human brain makes categorical computations in milliseconds that are capable taking in more than one factor & weighing them up. If they weren't we wouldn't still be here…

As usual you conveniently remove context to support your inconsistent position. The subject was how inflammatory language or violent actions beget violent language/actions. IE ideas aren't the problem its how they are 'framed' in dehumanising & demonising language that are so 'chilling' of ideas is irrelevant.

Ahhh so this 'study' includes a comparative number of trans people who haven't undergone a male puberty &/or have had hormones & surgery?

Please….

This is an example of how people become victims of false propaganda narratives. It's not a matter of 'kindness' that underpins social freedoms/limitations but whether or not an action is harmful. IE Entitlement depends on harm that isn't evidenced in women sharing public bathrooms with trans women.

"The harm principle is a legal and philosophical concept, famously proposed by John Stuart Mill, that states government intervention is only justified to prevent harm to others. It asserts that individuals should have the freedom to act as they wish, even if their actions are risky or self-destructive, as long as those actions do not cause harm to another person. This principle limits state power to restrict personal liberty, with the phrase "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" serving as a common illustration."

You may need to re read the thread. The conversation has moved (as is often common) from the initial discussion to social distinctions on sex that influences how people perceive themselves.

Howse must live in a very different place from me. 'Sartorial presentation' really isn't a thing here in rural Wales, and clothing for both sexes is very similar. I definitely don't look at clothing to decide whether someone is male or female.

Yep.

Interesting discussion. When I've talked about this with trans people, they insist it's not their appearance that makes them a man or a woman. I guess this poster is telling them they're wrong.

Yes @Howseitgoin this caught my eye too. I assume that, like most of us here, you live in a country where cultural sex norms are not strongly enforced. So how is sartorial presentation helpful to you when sexing a stranger?

I have a male friend who looks spiffing in a dress (annoyingly, he can get away with wearing things that would make me look like an ambulant sofa). If you saw him, how would you decide whether he was a gender non-conforming man or a transwoman?

When I read that sartorial presentation has categorisational relevance to a human’s sex category, I reread the word as satirical.

Women, you shall not discuss the chilling effect of male people’s acts of intimidation, violence and abuse because doing so is you intimidating those male people!

And doing so will then bring retributions as have been highlighted by Howseitgoin on this thread. Somehow justified because a group should not be expected to just lay down and accept their oppression (unless that group is the group known as ‘female people’) The group’s oppression being that female people ask that their needs are respected and that those male people don’t access single sex provisions.

Apparently, this is the stage we are now at.

@StormyPotatoes if you needed any active demonstration of how we got here, you have a thread showing how it is done.

I see.

Stating that intimidation, threats and violent acts towards women produces a chilling effect is comparative to women stating that those acts are creating a chilling effect in women.

I don’t think you are getting the message across that you want to.

Sartorial presentation, you have got to be kidding me. A man in a dress is very obviously a man in a dress. 😂