Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

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.

Can anyone think of any legal cases where employers have insisted that males must wear high heels for work? Or is it only woman who have been required to wear high heels to be employed?

Being trans identified is to literally re-inforce gender stereotypes, not challenge them.It is to suggest that if you feel one way or other, or if you have a preference for certain sorts of things then this is what makes you male or female.

I think this confusion arose/developed out of certain strands of feminism - those which stated that there was no difference between the sexes at all, and that any differences ( at population level) that did exist were purely socially constructed and used to oppress women (and gay men - who were associated with women).

Transgender ideology is a weird hybrid borne of a particular time in western social and cultural history...largely rooted in western Individualism ( and american civil rights) with its aspirations towards transhumanism and being free of the body and its confines and limitations.

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

@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.

Genes and hormones tell women to shave their legs or wear dresses or smile when they are furious at being belittled yet again? Yeah right.

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

Oh the arrogant confidence of men telling women what it is to be us!

Oh the arrogance of speaking for all women!

Look mate. If you want to separate the bogs into "people with wommany feelings" and "people without womanny feelings" then go for it. Make an honest case.

If you get the vapours at the thought a few women might be incorrectly questioned about bring men, I can't wait to hear how you are going to justify challenging people who you don't think feel womanny enough on the inside!

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.

Yes, it's such a shame that a tiny minority of men ruined it for everyone. But then men are always the reason we can't have nice things.

Genes and hormones tell women to shave their legs or wear dresses or smile when they are furious at being belittled yet again? Yeah right.

And slaves are people who are genetically and hormonally programmed to just really love wearing chains.

You have no idea.

Oh the arrogant confidence of men telling women what it is to be us! 😂

I don’t really care if they are 0.0001%. Statistical significance is irrelevant. Everyone in society should do the right thing and go by biology rather than presentation. Then we can all be who we want to be, dress how we want to. Have no stereotypes foisted upon us.

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?

Of course. They have to, otherwise their whole argument fails.

They have nothing but superficiality and snark. Their whole movement is based on "I know myself fully, I was born this way, society exists outside me and separate from me for me to take, not something that shapes me."

The idea that "yes, women, being human, are susceptible to social pressure and form our sense of self not in a vacuum but within and influenced by society's existing norms, and that we can recognise this is true for us today while still believing it's possible to change the future" just blows their tiny minds.

She’s just spouting a mantra without thinking about whether it actually makes the slightest bit of sense.

I agree.

If there is a good case to include some men in a particular "women's" resource based on some shared need then change the name to label the need and drop the pretence it's a single sex resource.

Ultimately, accepting some men are meaningfully more like women than other men because of how they present, or think, or feel unavoidably also requires accepting that there are ways to present, think or feel that are right for women but not for men, or vice versa.

Rather than using "women" as a label for something that some men also feel, I would prefer that we just be honest.

Well if someone passes that easily then they get away with it. I am none the wiser. I don’t ask every single person who I come into contact with what sex they are. I do have a high degree of trust.

but for instance, saw all the hype about Hunter Schaffer where everyone was going on about well they pass.l and how beautiful they are etc etc. I took one look and was thinking that is clearly a male. Everything about them screams a male body regardless of makeup and
clothes. Elliot page- clearly a female. There is no way I wouldn’t notice what sex they are. I would hope that they self police into the right single sex space.

I don’t doubt there are a few cases who go unnoticed but most people can clock certain signs. But regardless we shouldn’t need to go by looks- we should just simply trust people go by their biological sex in their daily life. How they present themselves publicly is irrelevant. I want a society where no one has to police anyone else as we know they will do they right thing

"You think it is belittling to recognise this."

My point was its not factual because biology as in genes & hormones says so.

"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.

If she is claiming that women's rights depend on lying about biological reality, she is arguing against women's rights.

Yes. It's harder than people think. It's a hereditary disease (that's a metaphor for something you pick up from your immediate family not an actual diseae, obviously) and it's the work of generations to get past it.

But hey, congratulations on sharing one the MRAs' favourite anti-Feminist talking points to try to make your "case"!

Feminist women - the real ones not the You Go Girl T shirt ones - know this. We experience the tension between how we learned to think of ourselves and present ourselves as women and our understanding later in life that these are not formed in a vacuum but shaped by our environments. You think it is belittling to recognise this. It isn't. It is scary, brave and honest to face ones own part in things one wishes were different. But it has to be done, woman by woman, at that personal level, to move forward.

There is a reason Feminists used to say the personal is political.

I'm afraid your 'argument' is unconvincing. Probably because you're wrong.

Except I was using it to disagree with you.

GC women do not believe that all men have a shared set of thoughts, behaviours and intentions, any more than we think that women share a uni-mind.

We know, from data and statistics that men are stronger, faster, bigger and more violent than women, and have the capacity to impregnate women, therefore we know that men are statistically a threat to women.

That is the only generalisation that GC women make.

The law, and the guidance, are based on the fact that there is an objective reality called sex, which everyone does know about themselves. The idea that this is difficult or unfortunate is definitely misogynist.

Im not someone who believes I can always tell. Yes I wish everyone would take that on board. Particularly because GC objections are often based on the understanding that you CAN’T always tell, but that gets glided over. If everyone could always tell, in every circumstance, there would t be an issue. And yes, I do think that eg women quite reasonably wanting single sex intimate care might easily find a very butch female transman turning up more upsetting than a feminine transwoman.

I still think, however, that law and public policy require honesty and agreed definitions. It is not ok for that very feminine transwoman to assure the woman needing care that she’s a woman, because she’s not. It is absolutely ok for that transwoman to interrogate and campaign on what people mean when they ask for single sex intimate care. But overriding that woman’s boundaries is still not right. And I think that the trans people I know would say the same. What we have found in recent years is that if there is a legal loophole, there are a bunch of chancers who will absolutely push through it, which was entirely predictable.

Yes because we should be able in society to trust that people are who they say they are. It is only because people are deliberately breaking that trust that it causes people to get nervous and start questioning. This guidance shouldn’t be needed should it if people just go to the single sex space of their biological sex.

as it happens, surface level observation is accurate in 99.9% of cases. Occasionally someone might get it wrong but it’s rare and usually cleared up with a conversation.

Yes.