Europe must not erase sex - We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

And it looks like they want to do the same thing, again. Only this time with sex.

I’m not saying it’s illegal, I’m saying that decades ago the French didn’t consider it necessary to collect data that would help identify inequalities. I don’t know that ‘race’ would necessarily have been the right category, either. As you say, it can be a very subjective rubric. Parental place of birth and date of arrival in France might be more informative. The point is that refusing to collect any such data because of the belief that saying that everyone had equally regardless of origin meant that they had equality, made it impossible for them to recognise that place of origin was exactly the reason certain people did not have equality.

@JellySaurus I agree with the need for adequate data. I dispute that "race" is an adequate variable because, on top of being morally wrong, it it cannot be correctly categorized (again, based on what I wrote above, what should I answer to "what race I am" ? What should Obama answer ?). Just like the bullshit that is gender.

Place of birth and/or citizenship of parents or grandparents, for instance, is factual and not "feeling-y". And it' perfectly legal in France to collect data based on it, by the way.
Even Pantone of skin color would be more factual than "race".

I was agreeing with you and outlining why you are correct.

Yawn... Here we go again, back on the merry-go-round of immaterial and unprovable "gender identity" being somehow more important that very material reproductive sex, which comes in only two forms - male and female. We all know it's nonsense, yet here we are... 🙄

Yes. I don’t know if you’ve misunderstood me. I was giving an example of the ridiculousness of the TRA argument that they will say “if sex is about biology then a woman who is infertile/has had a hysterectomy/hasn’t been pregnant” can’t be a woman, so “womanhood” must be defined by something other than biology……”

As long as it’s not a neo-vag. No man wants to procreate with one of those, regardless of sexual attractiveness or femininity. Funny, that.

Women who have had hysterectomies are still women. The fact that they had a hysterectomy and not, say, a prostectomy, proves that they are women. Only a woman can have a uterus for it to removed.

How can sex be acknowledged behind the doctor’s door if officially it does not exist? If the law states that sex does not exist, acknowledging it behind the doctor’s door becomes as much of a crime as drug dealing - it’s not legal just because it’s done in private. We have already seen what happens behind the doctor’s door when sex is not acknowledged: trans-identifying women being under-treated because kidney-function test results are interpreted with reference to male parameters, or becoming seriously ill with an ectopic pregnancy because men cannot be pregnant.

As if. The men always know who the women are when it comes to knowing who to rape.

>For example the "proportional rule" in the UK refers to the legal principle that allows for the proportionate exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, a concept affirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This means a service can exclude trans women from spaces like hospital wards or rape crisis centers, but only if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

You have misunderstood this. The SC court said that it was proportional to exclude Trans-identifying women (“trans men”) from female only services, if it was a proportionate means etc - for example if their masculinized aspect would affect female attendees sufficiently negatively.

it said nothing about excluding trans-identifying men under this test, which would be an everyday and necessary step based on the purpose of the service.

Sorry haven't read whole thread for obvious reasons. This article by Sarah Ditum is relevant. Why are the left so obsessed with utopian answers to problems. Meanwhile the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and middle class grifters pat themselves on the back.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b70d6267-0ef2-4a53-94bc-ab78151c510a?shareToken=a26a40ef105217b2e6d863c9b149c949
Good intentions can be a terrible thing. Back in 2022, when the Black Lives Matter protest movement was at its peak and liberal politicians were falling over themselves to show how much they cared about trans people, the state of California passed something called the Safer Streets for All Act (SB 357). What came next is a parable of well-meaning activism colliding with reality.

I recently saw a local news story about a number of non-binary people who were business owners. The angle was showcasing these people as underrepresented trailblazers or something. And all I could think when I read the headline was are these the men kind or the women kind. They were all the men kind.

It's a fucking joke. Sexists know which people they think are inferior. Pretending that we don't know only serves misogynists.

Perfectly placed!

Love Amy Sousa and her cut-glass clarity.

I have a theory that all of these young men come to her on tik tok seeking, however unconsciously, exactly this clarity of boundaries that she gives.

There's lots in this movement, generally, around ambivalence of both rejecting and desperately seeking boundaries I think.

As embodiment (where boundaries are key) is Amy Sousa's area of expertise, she is particularly strong on explaining this.

What I find fascinating is looking at it as microcosm and macrocosm (from individual level to cultural level). So, from the necessity of experiencing the bodily boundary to develop the individual's sense of self, to the boundaries needed in personal relationships, and outward in safeguarding and laws in society.

It strikes me that if a family therapist helped a parent with establishing reasonable boundaries to help the psychological safety/relationship with/family dynamics of a child- this would be considered a healthy intervention.

On the large scale, with this particular group (trans identified men), women pushing back are like the therapist - pointing out that total permissiveness may feel loving and easier, but it serves no-one in the long run.
But at this level- any intervention to encourage assertive balance is seen as bigoted and cruel and authoritarian.

Watching this video made me think about something else I myself didn't fully understand until later life, and I think it is a point so many people don't see as it's rarely articulated.
It's that boundaries are relational; not just affecting the one who does or doesn't hold them.

It's interesting that the trans activist movement talks so much about safety, and even psychological safety- as feelings of safety are so strongly correlated with boundaries, and yet the activism pushes for boundarylessness. And this reminds me of how chaotic and deeply insecure children are often drawn to the calm and fair but strict teacher at school. They feel that they want to just be totally unhindered, but at another level they crave, and know they need, being around someone with clear boundaries in order to actually feel safe.

So, coming back to my key point that the video reminded me of: that with parenting and other relationships-effective asserting of the boundary is not telling the other person what they must or must do, it's about stating and holding to what I will or will not accept for my own, and other's, safety and wellbeing.

Authoritarian is telling other what they must do- about controlling others.
Assertive is drawing a line around what is acceptable regarding impacts to me and others.

In resisting the boundary, assertiveness could be experienced, initially, as authoritarian, by those being pushed back on. That's no surprise.
This is because they are not yet able to see the asserter as differentiated from themselves (boundaryless). So, someone saying 'I will not accept this for myself/those I am also responsible for' is heard as 'you are being prevented/withheld from'. (I think this is where psychology links with feminism and could go off on another whole tangent! )

With the example of adult and child though, if the line is reliably held, this eventually helps the child find their own edges, as well as feel safer in the relationship.

Anyway, what has been most surprising to me is, all the other adults joining in on seeing and calling healthy assertiveness authoritarian.

Aside from this being a shocking dislocation from everything I thought we had learned about psychological development, healthy relationships, leadership etc over the years; this then leaves no possibility for the healthy change that can happen (and what the non-boundaried are often unconsciously seeking I think), when assertive self-boundarying has positive gains for the other too.

It would be like a parent trying to do this work of creating a physically and psychologically safer relationship and environment, and all of the authorities telling the child to ignore the parent as they are just a bully. (And yes, we do see this happening literally too).

I might not be explaining this thread of thought very well! Maybe Amy or someone else has articulated this particular point; about differentiating between assertiveness and authoritarianism.
Especially as being accused of authoritarianism and far right is so large in the discourse right now.

Please let me know if you have come across anything that does this.

Queen Theory in a nutshell, the gospel according to Butler.

When my rapist raped me I was in black trousers and a jumper. I wasn’t performing femininity to try to get me a man. And honestly to say that is what happens is, in my opinion, a slippery slope to rape apology. But that doesn’t surprise me because some of what @Howseitgoin has addressed to me in the past has been abhorrent, in my opinion.

@Howseitgoin here you are again. And I’ve decided my mental health can cope for the length of time it takes me to tell you that single sex exemptions exist as a proportionate and reasonable aim to keep women safe. Because men, regardless of their gender identity, commit 98% of all sexual assaults. And having a man in a women’s toilet, even if he’s in a dress and wearing lippy, will severely traumatise me and other women like me.

Also. Cis as an identifier isn’t needed. Woman works just fine. The identifier that will work in the cases you are talking about it trans. Trans women - a subset of men. Because in the U.K. sex means biological sex.

And thank fuck for it.

You’ve reached peak bollocks here. Lived experience as a female shows you that men will try desperately to procreate with you regardless of sexual attractiveness or femininity. Just having a vagina will do, the rest is social construct. Chat not is not your friend.

I didn't name anyone in my post.

Why was it deleted?

Eddie izzard?

You can’t oversimplify something that’s binary. Conflating sex and gender is the problem. Gender? I don’t give AF, do what you like. Sex: you can’t change it no matter what society thinks progression looks like.

The logical next step, which actually trans people would hate, but gender theorists might go for, is self-ID for all, at all times. Woman in the morning, man in the afternoon.

That seems to be the thought....

Removing all official acknowledgement of sex (other than behind the closed door of the doctor's surgery) will teach us all to be sex-blind. So we will be pansexual, and put a stop to all misogyny. FTFY 🙄

Trans people absolutely deny the biological reality of sex. The argument now is “I am a woman and I am biological so therefore I am a biological woman.” And all the effort which goes into arguing that DSDs prove that sex isn’t binary (they don’t), that other species can change sex so therefore it’s a thing for us (because we are basically the same as clownfish and sea slugs) and that if biology really mattered, women who have hysterectomies wouldn’t be real women any more and they clearly are, so therefore it can’t just be about body parts……that’s before we even get started on the transwomen who argue that they experience PMS.