Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

This is silly. The context here isn't about policy/how society should be structured as a result of a conflict in rights. The context is the right to self determination of identity.

The problem is technology has moved on since the 'hard wiring' for the purposes of confusing the 'hard wiring' as in hormones, puberty blockers, surgery etc etc.

Old women look young, flat chested women look bigger, women look like men/ men look like women etc etc

Not to mention there's this thing called 'biological diversity' & 'menopause' & 'cancer treatment' where women look like men, men look like women & so on.

The problem is technology has moved on since the 'hard wiring' for the purposes of confusing the 'hard wiring' as in hormones, puberty blockers, surgery etc etc.

Old women look young, flat chested women look bigger, women look like men/ men look like women etc etc

Not to mention there's this thing called 'biological diversity' & 'menopause' & 'cancer treatment' where women look like men, men look like women & so on.

The problem is technology has moved on since the 'hard wiring' for the purposes of confusing the 'hard wiring' as in hormones, puberty blockers, surgery etc etc.

Old women look young, flat chested women look bigger, women look like men/ men look like women etc etc

Not to mention there's this thing called 'biological diversity' & 'menopause' & 'cancer treatment' where women look like men, men look like women & so on.

Friend of mine has posted on her social media ( a very long detailed post) that basically trans rights are women’s rights and that what she sees as transphobia is akin to people who ‘punish’ women who don’t fit into gender stereotypes, don’t get married, don’t look ‘feminine’, don’t have children…Says she’s a feminist and defends the rights of trans women to live safely etc …whatever that means. Cis women mentioned several times. I don’t normally comment on these kinds of things on FB but struggling with this particular post! If I were to say something what would you say?

We all instinctively assess each other all of the time. Being able to tell the difference between the sexes and recognise these features is hard wired in. Even birds and animals can tell the difference. A lot of men seem to think they pass, and some are probably encouraged to feel this way by well meaning friends, but they really don't. You don't even have to be close up to recognise someone's sex, you can pick it up from quite a distance; from the gait, movement etc

A camp gay man with exaggerated 'feminine' movements is still recognised as male.

I disagree with your starting point. The guiding principle of feminism is not self determination but that female people should be able to particpate in society on equal terms, with their needs and realities fully taken into account. Feminism centers around the fact society doesn't take into account the differences biological sex leads to and that that should change.

I don't need to speak for all women. One exception to your sexist ideas is enough to break your sexist "theory".

And mate, there are so many more than one of us.

Read some Feminism. The role of society in forming gendered personalities is well understood.

"Owwwwwww!!! Stop making me buy those $1500 high heels!!!"

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that women evolved to wear stupid shoes rather than were socialised into it?

Ironically you actually picked a great example to demonstrate how society makes it rational for women to act against our own long term interests. There is a whole new thread to start about why the shoes and handbags thing has emerged so strongly in the last 30 years or so.

But it would require you to ne clear-eyed, engage honestly and listen to women instead of looking for ways to score cheap points, so sadly it goes into the graveyard of things it's not worth talking to Genderists about because their blinkers preclude them understanding the core points.

You lot really are committed to bullying anyone who dares express a dissenting opinion off this board, aren't you.

You imply that behavioural variance is almost binary with a few outliers and that there are obvious behavioural phenomenons that have been proven to be biological and not the result of socialisation. None of this is true and we need to be very wary of such assertions.

For god's sake.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/

This doesn't mean though that biological men can pretend to be women anymore than it means that white people can pretend to be black or that adults can pretend to be minors.

This is what's commonly referred to as a 'false equivalence'. Trans people have an association in that they share behavioural characteristics & inclinations typical to the opposite sex. There's no association between black & white people or adults to minors. All these categories are defined differently so you can't compare them. How race is defined depends on physical attributes. Age depends on chronological years. Gender depends on gendered associations with sex.

Self determination should not be allowed in some areas for obvious reasons. I used my learning disabled relative as an example. There are huge overlaps with his behaviours and children's behaviours but he is not a child. It would be wholly inappropriate and unsafe to allow him into safe spaces designed exclusively for the use of children. I would absolutely stand against any attempt to allow him to identify as a child because he shares some commonalities. This would be damaging for everyone involved.

As I explained earlier ,commonalities don't necessarily justify policy. Social utility does as in the details matter.

You'd like a society where everyone can trust each other to do the right thing would? Trans women are .25 of the population. Cis Women who are sexually ambiguous in presentation? A helleva lot more who now face heightened anxiety over scrutinisation & harassment all for a non issue.

How's that 'trust' working for UK women now?

The attempt to fold "transphobia" into misogyny is pretty much a textbook example of how the trans movement tries to colonise womanhood. But it also betrays their thinking about what a woman is. Women are oppressed as women because of their sex (regardless of what they look like), but trans thinking suggests it's because of their appearance, hence men who look like women can also be victims of misogyny.
Which is nonsense, but revealing.
There is nothing these men will not try to steal from women, even our sex-based oppression.

You imply that behavioural variance is almost binary with a few outliers and that there are obvious behavioural phenomenons that have been proven to be biological and not the result of socialisation. None of this is true and we need to be very wary of such assertions.

For god's sake.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/

This doesn't mean though that biological men can pretend to be women anymore than it means that white people can pretend to be black or that adults can pretend to be minors.

This is what's commonly referred to as a 'false equivalence'. Trans people have an association in that they share behavioural characteristics & inclinations typical to the opposite sex. There's no association between black & white people or adults to minors. All these categories are defined differently so you can't compare them. How race is defined depends on physical attributes. Age depends on chronological years. Gender depends on gendered associations with sex.

Self determination should not be allowed in some areas for obvious reasons. I used my learning disabled relative as an example. There are huge overlaps with his behaviours and children's behaviours but he is not a child. It would be wholly inappropriate and unsafe to allow him into safe spaces designed exclusively for the use of children. I would absolutely stand against any attempt to allow him to identify as a child because he shares some commonalities. This would be damaging for everyone involved.

As I explained earlier ,commonalities don't necessarily justify policy. Social utility does as in the details matter.

"as it happens, surface level observation is accurate in 99.9% of cases."

You know this how? Every trans person ever has been 'assessed' by everyone & the results tallied have they?

Please save the clownsville 'science' for face book.

You imply that behavioural variance is almost binary with a few outliers and that there are obvious behavioural phenomenons that have been proven to be biological and not the result of socialisation. None of this is true and we need to be very wary of such assertions.

For god's sake.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/

This doesn't mean though that biological men can pretend to be women anymore than it means that white people can pretend to be black or that adults can pretend to be minors.

This is what's commonly referred to as a 'false equivalence'. Trans people have an association in that they share behavioural characteristics & inclinations typical to the opposite sex. There's no association between black & white people or adults to minors. All these categories are defined differently so you can't compare them. How race is defined depends on physical attributes. Age depends on chronological years. Gender depends on gendered associations with sex.

Self determination should not be allowed in some areas for obvious reasons. I used my learning disabled relative as an example. There are huge overlaps with his behaviours and children's behaviours but he is not a child. It would be wholly inappropriate and unsafe to allow him into safe spaces designed exclusively for the use of children. I would absolutely stand against any attempt to allow him to identify as a child because he shares some commonalities. This would be damaging for everyone involved.

As I explained earlier ,commonalities don't necessarily justify policy. Social utility does as in the details matter.

@Baileyonice
The tail ends are irrelevant to the point here of how human categorisations work. When an overwhelming majority of a group adopts certain behaviours they become associated to them. This isn't stereotyping this just a fact of how human categorisation works because in no way does saying that typical behaviours associated with a group exist mean that less typical one's don't exist. Its as silly as say people can't hold two different thoughts in their heads at the same time.
Dismissing an overarching pattern or valid phenomenon simply because a few minority variations don't fit the rule indeed leads to deeply flawed, incompetent evaluations
You imply that behavioural variance is almost binary with a few outliers and that there are obvious behavioural phenomenons that have been proven to be biological and not the result of socialisation. None of this is true and we need to be very wary of such assertions.

We know by the age of 2.5 for example that girls show a strong preference for pink things choosing pink objects over blue objects 80% of the time. We also know that five year old boys show an aversion to pink and will only select the pink object 20% of the time. So the 'typical' behaviours at these ages would suggest that choosing the pink object is a fundamentally female trait. Except we know that girls below these ages showed no preference for pink and that girls that grew up in different cultures that didn't associate pink with females didn't have a preference for pink. It seems that socialisation as opposed to biology plays a much larger role but according to your logic boys that have a strong preference for pink would be expressing feminine characteristics and this could be seen as a sign that they were somehow born into the wrong body or sex. Don't you see how dangerous this is?

Building on this further, we know that adults treat babies dressed in blue and pink differently and shock horror, the way we treat the babies aligns perfectly with gender stereotypes. Is it any wonder then that babies who have been conditioned a certain way are more likely to develop certain traits? How can we prove that these traits are biological or a result of this different treatment? Your assertion that social conditioning is secondary in all of this is incompetent and deeply flawed.

An is is not an ought. Recognising some groups have a commonality with others doesn't mean they require the same treatment. Both minors & adults being an example. It's as if you would like people to pretend there are no parallels between groups when there clearly are. And in any case self determination encompasses the right to individual values. In other words its up to the butch natal female what defines them more when it comes to gender: Their reproductive or behavioural traits
What on earth are you talking about? Of course there is a huge amount of commonality between the sexes and all other groups in society. That's what I mean by variance and within that normal level of variance there will be all kinds of overlaps. This doesn't mean though that biological men can pretend to be women anymore than it means that white people can pretend to be black or that adults can pretend to be minors.

Self determination should not be allowed in some areas for obvious reasons. I used my learning disabled relative as an example. There are huge overlaps with his behaviours and children's behaviours but he is not a child. It would be wholly inappropriate and unsafe to allow him into safe spaces designed exclusively for the use of children. I would absolutely stand against any attempt to allow him to identify as a child because he shares some commonalities. This would be damaging for everyone involved.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Simply expressing my opinion. Maybe you should all try stop trying to convince people all the time.

You'd like a society where everyone can trust each other to do the right thing would? Trans women are .25 of the population. Cis Women who are sexually ambiguous in presentation? A helleva lot more who now face heightened anxiety over scrutinisation & harassment all for a non issue.

How's that 'trust' working for UK women now?

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.