Talking to non GC people

And the much vaunted difference between "Genuine" and "Not Genuine" simply boils down to the man in question's self image. But his self image does nothing to change the woman in question's experience of him. So again, the conversation, the "middle ground" is still being framed by the man's needs and the man's perspective rather than womens.

This, precisely.

I don't know about "all", because I've met some transwomen who didn't seem to care about being feminine in any stereotypical way. Though of course I only know what they looked like and how they acted in public - nothing about their private lives.

Quite a few other transwomen, however, yes, it's obvious it's a fetish. I remember a forum discussion that baffled me at the time, where a TW insisted she just had to wear a tight blouse, a leather miniskirt and high heels to go get her morning bread and croissants on Saturday mornings, and it wasn't fair that people looked at her weird. I pointed out that she would pass a lot better in jeans and baskets, but she seemed to completely miss the point. I realise now that it was I who missed the point...

If GC people don’t draw that distinction themselves, then they can sound prejudiced/demonizing/stigmatizing or mocking of very pleasant, struggling people in the lives of the people they are talking to.

People who are seen as very pleasant, struggling people are still capable of wrong actions. Men are particularly prone to sexual misdemeanours and violence, and as a man I am aware of what I could do if my anger was not under control, or what I could do if I lacked sufficient respect for women's boundaries or indeed other societal boundaries. Good men are not entirely safe, as can sometimes be seen following brain injury or the onset of dementia. I have seen no conclusive evidence that men who claim a trans identity are as safe in these respects as women. I have no wish to distress trans people, but I will not treat them as if they are different in these respects from others of the same sex.

I do wonder if I will ever be brave enough to ask my relative to explain what AGP is in their own words. I think it would be an interesting answer. A sexual motivation has never been mentioned as a possibility previously, and they have mainly focused in the past on male homosexual transexuals (HSTS), with the occasional mention of women who identify as non-binary.

HSTS are apparently the 'most vulnerable people ever'. I have thought there is a desire to protect and nurture them in the mix.

Wow! She’s good. I have a new heroine.

@financialcareerstuff
Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet or consciously choose to use a pronoun that would not feel right for them. I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s.

The same tired intellectually lazy tropes just keep coming. Yet another “not my Nigel”, this time. It’s infuriating.

If there’s a problem with feminine looking men using men’s toilets, that for men to sort out. It’s not a woman’s problem.

You see I think that virtually all trans identified males, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or asexual are motivated by AGP. 'Womanhood' and all that is associated with it becomes a fetish ( an object to be attained or which is deified). This is as true of young men who are heavily into gaming and technology as it is of older, married cross dressers and transvestites. Even the males who are same sex attracted make a fetish out of 'femininity'. I've seen it, and I recognise it.

@financialcareerstuff

With respect to the “quiet inclusion,” and the idea of the gentle, passing, trans-identified man who quietly gets on and uses female spaces without bothering women, may I point you in the direction of this piece of writing, about the impact this might have on some women:

Think about that for a moment, this idea of a man who is “visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable” from a woman. Lots of women have suffered male violence, and some of those are permanently traumatised to the point that if they are surprised by a man in a supposedly female-only space, they will be retraumatised. These women may need domestic violence shelters and rape crisis services at certain times, but they don’t engage with the world solely as rape or domestic violence survivors. They have ordinary lives, too. They use public toilets, hospitals, gyms; they visit pubs, galleries, cafés, museums, theatres. They don’t wear a special badge or uniform so that we can identify them and make sure we cater for their needs. We don’t know who they are.

Obviously it’s not acceptable to say to such women “You can’t have any single-sex spaces”. But is it better to say “You can have single-sex spaces, mostly. Don’t worry: we’ll only let men use them if they look so much like women that you won’t be able to tell that they’re men.”

Think about that. Think about its power to undermine the certainty of an already traumatised woman that the woman she is dealing with at any given moment is truly a woman. If you’re not shocked by the sadistic, gas-lighting cruelty of that, you’re not doing the thinking bit right. Think harder. Think about it until you are shocked.

From here:

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/06/sex-peanuts-and-statutory-interpretation/

This "Middle Ground" business seems to require you to

1. ignore all safeguarding when someone says they are trans even though in every other circumstances it's totally non negotiable
2. ignore how the law requires clear universal definitions which are none negotiable
3. ignore how definitions of gender rely exclusively on sexist gender stereotypes (which may at times be into the realms of illegality) which are regressive for women and accept the entrenchment and reinforcement of these stereotypes
4. ignore biology and not mention biology even when it might be relevant and essential for the wellbeing of a trans person themselves
5. ignore the lived experiences of women who have felt trauma from males.
6. ignore the lived experiences of middle aged women who have said that they went through a period of struggling with their sex because they hated not being male due to sexism and how they'd wished they'd been male but are totally at peace with this now.

You are supposed to believe that it is a neutral act to use preferred pronouns and to de-sex language
7) thus pretending that gender neutral language is neutral and not biased towards men when it is used and ignore the problem that there's gendered usage of 'gender neutral language' - it's use and enforcement is targeted at the word 'woman' and anything to do with 'womanly' things whilst the word 'man' just generally gets ignored and stays where it is.
8) ignore the whole reasoning and examples of why women got women only provisions protected in law in the first fucking place.
9) force everyone to adhere to something that is unprovable, unworkable, harmful and removes safeguarding protocols and carries the threat of discipline if you don't adhere to something that actively is anti-science in order to accommodate a belief that someone else has, rather than merely making alternative parallel arrangements for those with different beliefs.
10) by going along with it, you encourage yet more threats, intimidation and harassment because the tactic has worked and merely criticising such behaviour as (rightly) unlawful has somehow been framed as not only 'unkind' but some sort of 'genocide' by those carrying out this behaviour!
11) you ignore the lived experiences of relatives and partners who have experienced a close family member transitioning and the impact on their lives and their own identity. Far from being 'just like being gay' it has a huge psychological and practical implication, which is so taboo barely anyone talks about it - in part because of outright abusive behaviour which threatens self harm if you offer any sort of honesty or self reflection of how it impacts.
12) allow vulnerable children to be sucked up into a movement which doesn't recognise the multiple different cohorts within it and how each group has very different vested interests. Instead you effectively pander primarily to middle aged male transitioners who want to use young women and children as shields to legitimise their own transition and reasons for it. This prevents exploration of trauma, actively leaves gay children and young adults in a space where outside presentation and sexist ideas are being pushed as a reason to medicalise in a 'progressive' gay conversion therapy. Actively mislead autistic children into beliefs that have no grounding in reality and they lack the capacity to fully grasp. Not to mention the Munchausen by Proxy types who have been actively recognised by respectable and neutral parties as existing.
13) forget the last fifty years or so of working towards saying it's ok for women to prioritise themselves and instead say, 'oh well no that doesn't count anymore as you are so privileged now you can forget all that and get back in your lane' whilst destroying the underpinning points of liberation.

There is nothing 'middle' about saying a bloke with a beard OR a bloke without a beard but with huge fake tits with/without a penis suddenly becomes a woman but you can't say 'er nope fuck off with that nonsense I don't believe that clap trap'.

There's nothing respectable in a man aping a woman with a fake voice, fake breast, fake walk, dressing in a way that would earn a woman a huge amount of derision for being overly sexualised in an inappropriate setting and then joining women's groups which are dedicated to talking about things like menopause, giving birth, periods and why these are proving barriers to x, y or z. It's pure colonisation and it's pure act of dominance over women. It is not an act of 'middle'. It's an act which restricts women from being able to highlight genuine issues they have disadvantage with - including from the act of self exclusion and self censorship. There's nothing polite about telling women not to mention female things because it might offend trans sensibilities. No fuck off and have your own support group for people who struggle with the reality of biology instead of trying to stop people who face their own physical struggles which you don't share - we wouldn't tolerate someone campaigning for Alzheimer's awareness turning up to a breast cancer awareness event shouting "you are privileged you have breast cancer, you are ignoring all the people with Alzheimer's how dare you not talk about Alzheimer's at this event" would we?

This middle group nonsense is a phrase trotted out by people who don't want to find out why women are complaining. They don't want to address why these women are left wing and haven't just turned into right wing Nazis - they don't want to acknowledge it's a doubling down on feminism. Because if they acknowledge that, they have to acknowledge their own sexist bias, arrogance and ignorance in not listening to anything difficult.

They just want to avoid conflict because that's a bit difficult so will the nice ladies just sit down and let the shouty aggressive men get their way. There's a good girl.

The only reasoning behind allowing him to use a women's facility seems to be his personal desire to do so

This gets to the nub of it for me.

Women are being asked to give up things that belong to them ... purely because men want access to them. There is no justification being offered. It's just about men's desire.

And then we're called bigots if we don't roll over and give it to them. 🫠

I used to think that Jan Morris represented the kind of person who might be quietly included, and then I read the article his daughter wrote about her childhood and what he really thought about women.

I'm not suggesting that Jan Morris was ever a physical threat to women - it's just that I don't understand why he is different to other men. The only reasoning behind allowing him to use a women's facility seems to be his personal desire to do so.

One of the very first rules I was taught in the trans community was a very, very firm, "There's no such thing as AGP, don't you ever mention it!" I had no idea what AGP was, but they were adamant about it not being discussed. So I'm not surprised they carried that attitude about more common things such as transvestitism as well outside the community.

@financialcareerstuff

I totally understand feeling overwhelmed by the level of response. Don't hesitate to step back if you need time and/or space. You can always revive this thread later on if you wish, or start another one on a specific point you may want to discuss, or whatever.

Which of course means that you don't have to comment on the following points whatsoever. I'm just leaving them here in hopes that they help you understand where I come from.

I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots.

This really speaks to me! Realising that the very word "woman" had been taken away from women, and its definition had to be reaffirmed by the UKSC, is the major event that made me finally understand what the women on this board were fighting for.

I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me.

That's actually good, because there's no one definition anyway. And no scientific evidence either, beyond, "Yes, there are people who think this or that."

However, I do feel for normal people who are struggling with their gender identity and simply want to feel accepted and safe. My natural inclination is to accept anybody who is just wanting to be who they want to be, and not think I have a say in it [...] However, I realise that this quiet ‘let it be’ acceptance has stopped working on a systemic level, and I am very sad about that.

Yeah, I understand, I'm the same. And I do believe that a lot of the general support for trans people comes from this place of acceptance. I know if I weren't trans myself, I'd feel awful having to choose between supporting women's rights and showing acceptance to trans people!

You said the only distinction is their opinions and extremity. those sound like very important distinctions to me.

What I meant is that they are not distinctions in "transness". A trans TRA and a GC trans person like me, are equally trans. Neither of us can be chucked out from under the trans umbrella because of our opinions.

And I would add another- as far as I can tell, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon who are attention seekers, bullies and polemics, and if they didn’t jump on this platform to be that, they would jump on another one instead. So I think there is a subset of activists who are simply misogynist bullies and may not ever have struggled with their identity at all.

Absolutely true, but unfortunately, they too are covered by the trans umbrella. There's no requirement for anything to be considered trans: not dysphoria, no struggle of any kind, no "living as the opposite sex", no nothing. The only rule is: "I am trans because I say I am." That's it. That's why a man who takes no hormones, has no intention of having surgeries, does no more effort to "live as a woman" than putting on a dress once a week, and goes around yelling into people's faces about "transphobia" and "I am a biological female", is just as much trans as I am or your cousin is, and would have his "trans rights" defended if those trans rights manifested in law.

So yes, there are bad apples rotting the whole barrel, but that's a feature, not a bug. The trans community is the one who welcomes those bad apples, and insists they are as trans as anyone else. The trans community would refuse it if you offered to protect the "true trans" (a concept they reject entirely) while dismissing the bad apples. Nothing GC people can do about this, I'm afraid.

but I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots

Completely agree

I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me. I don’t want anyone to feel discriminated against or unsafe, and it makes me sad that so much of the debate centres on ‘diagnosing’ or determining who trans people are.

I think that any group that claims particular rights needs to be able to explain what the group is - that is why I think it's important to define women, and why I think it's necessary to define 'trans'. The trans umbrella is so wide that it effectively includes gender critical feminists who don't think they have a gender. The only reason to exclude them is that they they are from the wrong tribe, not because they don't fit the criteria.

It's also necessary to define 'trans' if children are being given life changing medical treatment with harmful side effects because they are 'trans'. One of my main concerns about the Puberty Blocker trial is that nobody has spelled out what 'gender incongruence' means.

Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet

I don't know your cousin's sex, but whether they are male or female, if they use an opposite sex facility it becomes mixed sex and that has an impact on other people. You might feel that other people shouldn't care, but then you are arguing for a mixed sex facility. There is no logical possibility of a single sex facility that can be used by either sex. There is no 'nice' or 'middle ground' way to get around this. It's just a consequence of living in the material world.

I think when people know or are related to someone who has adopted a trans identity their viewpoint becomes skewed...and tends to become personalised and focused on the one with the trans identity, not on the general principles at stake.

But civil society does not make laws or rules that are predicated on personal feelings and relationships; it makes rules and creates guidelines which are based on common sense ( ususally) and on easily definable categories and clear lines of differentiation - so that everyone understands the lines and boundaries and knows where they are in relation to them.

And again, these are genuine questions to understand your post. I am not being sarcastic but I am trying to get clarity on what you are saying.

If that is the case then i'm probably a fundamentalist and extremist because i don't even accept the concept as a valid one when applied to real world situations...because the real world contains other people; mostly strangers with whom we have no prior understanding or relationship. In this world category definitions matter because they impact on everyone else....and the categories of male and female, man and woman are universally understood and accepted.

The thing with 'quiet inclusion' is that it was a myth.

It was actually an act of disrespect and in that sense it was an act of abuse toward female people that any male person just quietly used the female single sex toilets. As uncomfortable as it might be to admit it to themselves and for the people who love them to admit.

It was a failure of safeguarding. It also overrode female people's consent.

There is no version of 'quiet inclusion' that was recognising female people's consent. To be blunt it was access by deception.

From my reading of this post I take 'middle ground' to be one which accepts the concept of gender identity and the ways that people use it to define themselves?
Would that be correct?

I am again confused.

"I am definitely not militant or activist, basically not even engaged in the issue until yesterday"

So, you have never had a discussion about this issue until yesterday? Do you think that you have a firm understanding of what women on this thread want and are campaigning for?

Do you have any knowledge of safeguarding at all?

"Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet or consciously choose to use a pronoun that would not feel right for them. I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s."

Is your cousin male? Is your cousin saying he is a female person? Why are you worried about him using a male toilet?

Is your opinion that he wouldn't cause harm being in a female single sex space just by being in that space? I understand that you have said he probably uses mixed sex and that is great. However, are we to understand that you would be happy for him to use a female single sex space based on the fact that you know him and feel he would be ok to go in there (either now or prior to other male people acting in ways that stopped your ideal of acceptance working??

So, in reality you really do want some male people to be able to use the female single sex spaces? Is that your position?

If it is your position, why? It is at the heart of these discussions and I am sorry, but that is why we keep asking those questions.

On what basis, now or in the past, should your cousin have used the female single sex toilets in your mind? It comes down to a) b) c) d) from above or add an answer if those don't work.

But if you have never deeply challenged yourself as to why he should be in the female single sex toilets before, maybe now is the time answer.

'Quiet inclusion.'

Hmmm. There has definitely been a new taboo in the last 10+ years - that no one should mention that men can have paraphilias such as transvestitism. That some men who dress in women's clothes for fetish reasons are dangerous individuals. Men who stole women's underwear used to be taken seriously by the Police for a reason, as paraphilias can escalate. We must talk about this fact again.

Agreed!

The trans community, when I was in it, was all about easy sound bites, and lists of rules that you were supposed to swallow whole, never examine too closely, and dutifully regurgitate whenever necessary.

It says it all, really, that it's the women here who helped me discover what I meant by "I feel like a man inside", and even why I had transitioned, what I am getting from it.

And this video is perhaps confronting to some, yet if those finding it confronting actually stripped away all the emotional reasoning and focused on why sex categories are important to safeguarding policies and laws, I think this is a good indication of what we are left with.

Regardless...

https://x.com/KnownHeretic/status/2005692519624176091?s=20

Thank you Seethlaw. I appreciate your willingness/ desire to do that.

so there have been a lot of push on the actual biology/definition of man and woman stuff, With quite a few assumptions that I don’t believe womanhood is based in biology. I think that’s understandable considering I’ve entered a GC space and declared myself ‘middle’ rather than ‘GC’. So I will try to clear this up a bit. I am not sure if you have a self-determined definition of GC, but if it is purely that you are GC if you believe that women are adults who were born with vaginas etc, ie biologically based, then yes, I basically believe this already.

I am definitely not militant or activist, basically not even engaged in the issue until yesterday…… but I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots. I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me. I don’t want anyone to feel discriminated against or unsafe, and it makes me sad that so much of the debate centres on ‘diagnosing’ or determining who trans people are. I understand the logic and maybe this is unavoidable. but it isn’t my issue. And I think my leaning would definitely be towards ‘third space’ and ‘third label/box’ kind of solutions. And the title of ‘trans women’ feels reasonably respectful, while remaining distinctive. I suppose my natural hope when this issue first arose was to allow quiet inclusion without takeover- (I guess more how it feels trans men have integrated into manhood). At this point it is feeling impossible, because this issue has become so aggravated and politicized and there has been a bid for takeover on the trans activist level which is absolutely infringing. So if I am forced to pick sides, then I would always pick women. And no I don’t think anyone else’s needs or wants are more important.

However, I do feel for normal people who are struggling with their gender identity and simply want to feel accepted and safe. My natural inclination is to accept anybody who is just wanting to be who they want to be, and not think I have a say in it. I think that works on a human, individual level. Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet or consciously choose to use a pronoun that would not feel right for them. I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s. I suspect they use individual toilets whenever they can, because they are very adverse to any form of attention or conflict. I just hope they and everybody else can find something they are comfortable with. However, I realise that this quiet ‘let it be’ acceptance has stopped working on a systemic level, and I am very sad about that.

Seethlaw, I think it was you who said earlier that there is no distinction between ‘normal trans’ and activists or cross dressers. That is something I do struggle with seeing the same way. And I think many others not in the GC space do also. You said the only distinction is their opinions and extremity. those sound like very important distinctions to me. And I would add another- as far as I can tell, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon who are attention seekers, bullies and polemics, and if they didn’t jump on this platform to be that, they would jump on another one instead. So I think there is a subset of activists who are simply misogynist bullies and may not ever have struggled with their identity at all. I may be wrong. I don’t follow any of them -have just clicked on a few links posted here sometimes.

I will also say, I am overwhelmed by the level of response in what I’ve said. I was expecting to post one thing and have it fly by amidst a fast moving thread. I am trying to read and respond thoughtfully and don’t want to be accused of not doing so. But I also really have no need or want to take up this much space. I have been given plenty useful information and perspectives already, for which I am grateful.