How did we get here?

And also, there's a large group of entitled men, having never been told no, who can't quite believe that they're being denied exactly what they want, when they want it. 'Now, now, now!'

They seem to be stuck in the ego driven, demanding toddler stage forever. The sense of sheer disbelief that the adults have said 'no, you can't take that toy off someone else/can't have unlimited chocolate/ can't watch TV through the night/can'tdemand cutted up pear when there isn't any in the fruit bowl'.

And instead of setting firm, consistent boundaries like you would with toddlers, politicians and organisations said 'oh dear, let's just give in for an easy life'. Which is fine for a while, but then you get a monstrously entitled small child who wants the world to dance to their tune and 'who cares about everyone else?'.

And now there's these monstrously entitled, demanding men who want what they want now and screw everyone (particularly women) else.

And also, there's a large group of entitled men, having never been told no, who can't quite believe that they're being denied exactly what they want, when they want it. 'Now, now, now!'

They seem to be stuck in the ego driven, demanding toddler stage forever. The sense of sheer disbelief that the adults have said 'no, you can't take that toy off someone else/can't have unlimited chocolate/ can't watch TV through the night/can'tdemand cutted up pear when there isn't any in the fruit bowl'.

And instead of setting firm, consistent boundaries like you would with toddlers, politicians and organisations said 'oh dear, let's just give in for an easy life'. Which is fine for a while, but then you get a monstrously entitled small child who wants the world to dance to their tune and 'who cares about everyone else?'.

And now there's these monstrously entitled, demanding men who want what they want now and screw everyone (particularly women) else.

Why do we need to distinguish between the sexes in situations other than where sex matters?

If I’m out for dinner, or in a pub, or in a library, I am not interested in the sex of strangers inhabiting the same spaces as me. Nor do I care about their gender identity, gender expression or what they had for breakfast.

Even if I had a unique hobby of surveying the general public to consciously acknowledge the sex of those around me, how would this impact anyone but me? No difference would arise from me correctly or incorrectly sexing someone?

If I was in a pub and on the other side of the room there was an articulate couple, collaborating to solve a crossword, occasionally comforting each other as they cried together, both in immaculate make up and spinny skirts, why should their sex matter to anyone other than themselves, and possibly each other.

If either of them went to use the female loo, their sex does then matter and to every female who is a user of those loos. But, even here, their eloquence, empathy, and spinny skirt holds no consequence. Just their sex.

Using average levels of traits shared across classes as a defining feature of a class: an experiment.

Instead of behaviour, let's use an easy-to-measure category that varies little through adulthood - certainly one not changing on a day-to-day basis.

Height. The average man is taller than the average woman.

Globally, the average male height is 5ft 7in. Therefore we can say that anyone 5ft 7in or taller is a man, and anyone below 5ft 7in is (as the Green party would have it) a non-man - or 'woman'.

Therefore Napoleon was a woman. As are half the men in India (average height of an Indian man is 5ft 5in). Tom Cruise just squeaks into the male category, but Michael J Fox is now an actress. And Dutch women, at an average height of 5ft 7in, are men.

What Bint said.

OP, how we got here is at least partly because after being subjected to a couple of decades of this sort of relentless nonsense many companies, organisations and governments reached the 'fine, whatever you say, now please just shut up' stage and gave in.

And many individual politicians and people in positions of influence either aren't very clever, or are aren't intellectually confident, and don't want people to know. So when a lot of people are saying somethin complicated they don't understand, they assume that the fault is theirs for not understanding and they start loudly agreeing with the confusing thing so that they also seem clever.

Of course you don't because your starting place is with the false assumption that that only reproductive traits distinguish sex which they usually don't in practice.

What the hell do you mean by this? What do you think is the difference between men and women? Do you know where babies come from?

You also can't seem to comprehend that typical gendered behavioural associations being societally embraced to distinguish men from women is not a prescriptivist argument but a descriptivist one of the societal conventions we built.

Is this a word salady way of saying that stereotypes are based on average/typical behaviour of the sexes? If so, WE KNOW THAT. But a man behaving in a way which is more typical of women is still a man. Men don't become women just because they adopt behaviour more typical of women.

The lack of comprehension is all yours.

Society decides based on The Harm Principle. And globally whether trans people are a harm to women in public bathrooms isn't as settled as you would like it to be.

Why not make everything mixed sex then?

However, these tedious posts do allow for some great informative (and often funny) posts to be posted by those with far greater patience than I have. 😁

Indeed @MrsOvertonsWindow

Very true. Despite Howie's endless seething at women saying no to men in women's spaces and yet women still tell him no.

I never understand the attraction of spending so much time lecturing others online who you evidently despise. Presumably it fills a gaping hole in their lives but still very sad to see.

It’s just so obvious.

I do love these extended expositions of the illogical, reality-denying batshittery of the gender identarians.

Truly, they do our work for us. Keep it up 👍.

"I'm not sure what point you think you're making with this list of stereotypes."

Of course you don't because your starting place is with the false assumption that that only reproductive traits distinguish sex which they usually don't in practice.

You also can't seem to comprehend that typical gendered behavioural associations being societally embraced to distinguish men from women is not a prescriptivist argument but a descriptivist one of the societal conventions we built. IE no one is suggesting this is right or wrong just that it is. It is a separate concept unrelated to patriarchal expectations.

"I mean, suggesting that some men are very nurturing and sensitive and love wearing sparkly earrings, therefore they should be allowed in women's loos is not a persuasive argument."

Nor are female reproductive traits. Society decides based on The Harm Principle. And globally whether trans people are a harm to women in public bathrooms isn't as settled as you would like it to be.

Thanks for the helpful summary. I have been scanning this and other recent threads and have concluded:

1. You folk have the patience of saints to recover ground again and again.
2. We appear to be in the attrition phase where these ideas will be dismantled brick by brick.

Long form discussion demonstrates that once the be kind, inclusive vibe of GI is taken apart, it appears to be slippery, shape-shifting, and substance-less sloganeering. So many words wasted on an idea of so little merit. Sad times indeed.

Really hoping lots of people coming here to educate themselves see what we are up against and come away truly enlightened.

Also, according to this poster, we on this majority women board aren’t nurturing and caring in the way we should be, are we? And yet we are women and trans identified men claiming to be women are all men. Many of us don’t even head tilt, giggle, cry at the drop of a hat or wear a spinny skirt. Letting the side down, but hey ho.

was anyone really expecting something less silly?

"If a particular trait or pattern is mutually exclusive to males or females, then it can be incorporated as a defining feature of the sex category. If a trait does not reliably map onto male/female distinctions, then it requires its own separate category or classification system."

That's all very nice in theory but more often than not in practice IE social settings* we don't rely reproductive anatomy to distinguish males from females. Definitions are reliant on social usage which includes not just what we think about a concept but how we act*.

Wow.

So basically, the definition of what 'expressions of feminity' which we're all seething with resentment about and which we've been waiting for for half a thread consists of -

How much we cry (so men who cry are 'girly'? Isn't that a very regressive view?)

How 'nurturing' we are (to whom? Are we not women if we don't 'nuture' men determined to destroy women's right to single sex spaces?)

Good at teamwork (male sports team and the like might be surprised to find out that they are 'expressing their feminity')

Clothes and jewellery (ah, we're back to spinny skirts and make up).

And the insistence by Hows that women's toilets are a 'social' space just harks back to the pillow fight analogy. That porn soaked men imagine that we're all in the toilets giggling away, sharing lipsticks and offering each other tampons on the regular.

"If the shared experiences and perspective are based on a group being female, then personality traits are irrelevant."

Understanding/perspective is downstream of personality. Its why political preferences, life choices, special interests & personality are inextricably linked

"And if female people want to add the risks associated with playing sport with male people, they can play in mixed sex teams. As we have said repeatedly over many threads now."

Your'e confusing group traits with individual ones. Not all trans women pose a physical risk.

"And no. Sorry. Your clarification still does not make your argument any stronger. Male people who want a 'social' experience of using a female single sex toilet is exactly why safeguarding principles should keep that male person out. Imagine thinking that a male person utilising a group of female people to validate their identity without that group's consent, is appropriate."

That you need to continually deliberately misrepresent my words is very telling. Trans people aren't preferring women's loos for the 'funzies' of validation either. And consent is a personal choice not a group approved one for public utilities unless a society democratically decides so.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making with this list of stereotypes.

It may be true that these traits are more common in women than in men. But they're not exclusive to women, and men who exhibit these traits are still men.

I mean, suggesting that some men are very nurturing and sensitive and love wearing sparkly earrings, therefore they should be allowed in women's loos is not a persuasive argument.

Very much enjoying this real time demonstration of "how we got here" which is that it doesn't matter how many times women say no, point out women aren't a feeling in a man's head or a mass of stereotyped behaviour and then say no again, men don't take any notice of our no whatsoever. They just go on and on and ooooonnnnnnnn

Yep.

OK, let’s clarify within and between group differences and how they intersect with categories.

Biological sex is a category defined by between-group differences in reproductive anatomy. These anatomical differences form the boundary between the two sex groupings: male and female.

Other traits may cluster within one sex or the other, and may even be unique to one group, but this does not alter or undermine the category of sex itself, because it is defined by reproductive anatomy.

There are many ways to classify human beings, based on traits such as behaviour, morphology, or social roles.

If a particular trait or pattern is mutually exclusive to males or females, then it can be incorporated as a defining feature of the sex category. If a trait does not reliably map onto male/female distinctions, then it requires its own separate category or classification system.

This preserves the integrity of the sex category, which is defined by reproductive anatomy, while allowing for other meaningful classifications to exist without conflating them.

If you have someone with male reproductive anatomy (e.g. a prostate), they are male. There are no traits or other characteristics that alter this. If they have traits or characteristics that are more common in females, this means that those traits aren’t a useful indicator of sex.

But what if some women are caring, helle, and some men aren't? Blows everything you've said out of the water.

It is another rinse and repeat day.

Female people need single sex provisions based on their sex class.

Some male people demand access to those female single sex provisions and are told 'no'.

So, comes the attempt to destabilise the sex categories in any way possible to allow male people to be legitimately classed as ‘female’.

Then if that fails, attempt to delegitimise the premise for needing single sex provisions.

Then if that fails, attempt to discredit the groups who are working to support women’s and girl’s needs.

Then if that fails, attempt the wheedling ‘it is only a few’.

Finally, abuse and belittle those who disagree.

Or do all of these at once and in any order.

Rinse and repeat the next day.