Why is sex the only protected characteristic that people want to, or are ‘allowed’ to, self identify into? by

Logically, race is much more of a spectrum as well. Many people say they are 'half Black' or 'part asian' etc, or they do a DNA test and tell everyone they are 3% this and 27% that.

It would take much less to imagine a world where everyone was similarly mixed race, or racism was completely obliterated, and race was no longer a significant social construct, than to imagine a world where sex was no longer relevant (even just from a reproductive/physical perspective).

Age is a spectrum, and you can alter your physical appearance to look younger, or your 'biological age' via health measures.

So yes, it makes no logical sense to treat sex as the sole characteristic people can identify into.

And if you identified as straight but were in a gay relationship or hook up with people of the opposite sex, people would have questions.

Because it protects women and puts barriers on men.

It’s a bit more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. It’s quite shocking hearing you so angry about a marginalised group that face prejudice every day.

I'm not angry. I was simply explaining why it is totally unreasonable for your female friend who wishes she were a man to use the Gents. There is no nuance. What she is doing is wrong. The choice is hers to use the Ladies or Gender Neutral but she absolutely should not use the Gents because she is & will forever remain female.

Human Rights Watch male on male rape in prisons

www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html

This is Human Rights Watch on prison rape. The first sentence cites a case about a pre-operative transwoman, then all the rest is about ordinary boys and men getting sexually abused and raped.

And not many transwomen have had surgery.

I believe a beautiful looking young man, including a gay one, would definitely be a target.

Lots of men don’t care what hole they get. Think of rape in the Russian army.
They don’t think they are being gay if they are doing the penetrating.

@confusedbydating a “queer feminist” is an oxymoron

People are free to believe what they like about themselves.
They are not free to force me to share that belief.

If a man says he is a women, I do not have to support his delusion

Trans people are often mentally vulnerable.

This does not mean that trans women in particular are not also capable of doing physical damage to others.

It does not mean we should pretend they are really women in some mysterious way, and allow them into places where biological women should expect privacy, dignity and safety from the opposite sex.

Being vulnerable does not mean someone is guaranteed not to be a danger to others.

You are confusing two things.

As I have tried to explain, in order to use wrong sex pronouns, I have to over-ride my normal English language use and pretend the person I am referring to is the opposite sex to what they materially are.

That is difficult for most people at some level if they can perceive the actual sex of the person that is being referred to. It is a big cognitive dissonance.

It is not the same as using a different given name.

You are asking everyone to override the norms of their native language to signal that they are willing to pretend that someone has changed sex.

Pronouns have evolved to be a useful shorthand and refer to the usually obvious characteristic of sex. You are asking that we change a major function of naturally evolved language to reference someone’s “gender identity” which exists in someone’s head and is not necessarily externally perceptible.

You can’t force this onto everyone. Sexed pronouns are more useful in day to day communication as used by the vast majority of the population.

Or don't know how to explain the inexplicable. Easier to say 'it's all nuanced or complicated'
It isn't complicated
It isn't nuanced
We know this
Preferred pronouns are problematic: we are being asked to believe in gender identity and reject the evidence in front of our eyes. It isn't a neutral act.

confused: if you really want more information, there are some good threads on here including one called " break it down for me"
And a TW doesn't have a vagina-we also know this. It is a surgically constructed opening. Again, if you want more information, I'm sure the internet would help.

And if you think TW should be in women's prisons for 'safety' then small men, effeminate men, gentle men, disabled men should also be 'allowed' in. Why not? After all, they're vulnerable

TP are not more marginalised or vulnerable than any other groups.
Which group of people are more vulnerable and most at risk from male violence?
Oh yeah- that'd be women (and girls) The biological sexed kind.
But privacy and dignity are important too. It's not all about safety, important as that is.

Google Barbie Kardashian and then come back and lecture us some more.

When people talk about "nuance", or "it's complex", it's very often because they're trying to find a way to describe men as a type of woman.

"and yes once a man no longer has a penis he can’t legally rape. That’s an entirely problematic British law that doesn’t help with lebsian violence or women committing statutory rape but that’s another discussion entirely"

That (assaults by women) is really NOT the main problem with the legal definition of rape!

I've heard lectures from Forensic Psychiatrists about men who rape, and also about men who abuse children.

Chemical castration* medication has been used to stop these men's sexual urges.
Many/most still go on to reoffend. They go on to attack again, sexually assault again, sexually abuse children again.

Not having a penis doesn't mean that men are no risk.

And as mentioned by a previous poster, vulnerable men can ALSO be dangerous men.

*some of the medications used for chemical castration are also used as a puberty blockers

Having stood in a food queue with a load of Ladyboys of Bangkok
(they were performing in Brighton and I was there for the day)
they are most definitely blokes.
Small, lean, young
but blokes
who put on makeup and stage outfits to perform.

I view saying that trans people look like ‘men with tits’ is repulsive yes and I don’t want to be involved in it.
im sick of the hatred and aggression for having different viewpoints to some of you. Some of you are so disrespectful. The internet is forever and I don’t want to be associated with comments like that, even anonymously.
Enjoy your hate

Haha well it’s live and we can direct people here.

enjoy your trans bashing thread. I can’t and won’t abuse people for how they look or keep explaining basic points.

i think trans people are vulnerable and I think women are vulnerable and I thought this was a respectful discussion about why we need pcs. But clearly I came to the wrong place!
enjoy your hate I’m opting out.

You’re right, I don’t. But if they tell me I believe them. If they ask to be called a woman becuase of this I say ok.

No I didn’t call them trans women. I’m trying to follow your logic and language cjoices but it confuses but it’s not ones I would use naturally. Not calling lady boys trans. Just men that look like converionally attractive women