Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

As far as I'm aware, trans people have never received any wide-ranging, unquestioned public support in any modern culture. Gender critical people deny their status as an identifiable group with unique experiences and existence independent of sex, so cannot discuss them other than as grouped in with the other 99.??% of people.

Your definition of male is also a belief

Crikey. The definitions of the words male and female are not ‘beliefs’. When I take my cat to the vet, the vet refers to the cat as ‘he’, even though the cat has no testicles or penis (both were removed). The cat’s record states that it is male. ‘Male’ doesn’t have a different meaning at the vets to other contexts. It means the same thing everywhere.

If the definitions of words meant whatever the person using them wanted them to mean, we would never get anything done and meaningful conversation would be impossible. (See Humpty Dumpty)

Ok - less advanced, more sexist.

Regression would by definition require some level of progressiveness prior.

1. That doesn't answer my question about conflicting beliefs. I find your non-reply quite insulting actually.
2. Your belief that "societal beliefs about sex and gender are not aligned with gender critical belief" does not line up with my observations and experience. I cannot support your statement here, it reads to me like simple wishful thinking. Consider: if you believe that society does not expect women to be physically female, why is it such a cornerstone to your belief that you are a woman because the people you meet take you to be such? Surely (and assuming for this post you are a reliable narrator) this in itself betrays your own knowledge that you are only accepted as "a woman" in day to day life because those you meet are assuming you are female?

Sex is not a belief, societal or otherwise.

Decades of UK equality law legislation makes it clear that you are wrong.

(Not sure which country you come from. As has been discussed other countries such as Australia and the US are rather regressive when it comes to equality law).

I keep saying this because anything else I say will be attacked as 'wrong' and/or 'invalid.' The FWR power dynamic ensures that my beliefs are not fairly treated or respected by more than a few regular responders (who have done this from day dot.)

I understand the cultural differences between men and women. I am even aware of the biological differences between men and women. I've lived a relatively long enough time to have experience with this. I personally disagree with the gender critical definition because of the life I have lived.

The societal beliefs about 'sex' and 'gender' are not aligned with gender critical beliefs because cultures demonstrably do not enforce them as gender critical people would if they had the ability to do so.

Or if men did object to women using male toilets it was for exactly the same reason women did - it would have been humiliating and potentially dangerous for women to use the existing male toilets.

There’s no way anyone reading what the op writes would perceive them to be anything but male, even if they didn’t declare their trans status.

There was no cultural concern about 'single sex provisions' until gender critical people decided to focus on removing trans women from women's spaces. Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point, only afterward.

Why were 'single sex provisions' made in the first place? They have been around for well over a hundred years long before male transexuals first existed.

Your literal presence as you perceive it may well be antithetical to gender critical beliefs. But your perception of yourself appears to depend on the ability to change sex, which is to change one's history.

I swear this thread is illuminating.

And why did they make the provisions separate in the first place?

Why do think they made separate facilities then? Why didn't women just use the existing men's facilities? This was over a hundred years ago - there must have been a reason.

Edit: and it absolutely wasn't because men objected.

In the UK? Because women needed to piss and shit when out of the home and only men had such provisions at the time.

ETA: And men viciously protected these provisions from women

Are you fucking serious?

”Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point”

At what point do you think sex segregation for publicly provided toilets, changing rooms etc started? They have been implemented for decades at least. Because female people …

needed protection from male people!

The only thing doctors did for trans people (both trans men and trans women) who didn't 'pass' was give them what was called a 'carry letter'. I don't know the exact wording because I never had one, but I believe it explained that the 'carrier' was transsexual and were required to use the provisions of the sex they were presenting as part of the process of transition.

Genuine question.

You keep saying "that is your belief" as if it somehow settles things.

But outside our heads and our own beliefs, we all live in the same material world.

So if two people or two groups have contradictory beliefs, for example your belief that being a "woman" is based on something other than sex and therefore you can be and indeed are a "woman", and the belief of many other people throughout society and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the EA that "woman" together with "girl" simply means the female half of humanity as it has for hundreds of years before, or perhaps the belief that the phone muggers have that my phone is better taken by them than owned by me vs mine that it is not, what do you think society should do about these conflicting beliefs?

Yes they did, it was part of the whole 'living as a woman' advice along with long hair, skirts, make up and tilty heads.

Aye right.

This is just more of your contempt for female people. It really is showing through.

And again, you show you don’t understand safeguarding or consent. This time in regards from a legitimate and illegitimate discrimination aspect.

i know I have personally posted about this to you before.

Sex segregation is legitimate discrimination. And that also revolves around safeguarding and consent.

Excluding female people from a female single sex provision on the basis of beliefs is ILLEGITIMATE DISCRIMINATION. Therefore it is not lawful. Consent doesn’t apply to other users that are legitimately within the category boundaries of segregation.

It really isn’t that hard to understand. But by all means, continue because everytime that you post this kind of contempt for female people, new people reading understand more. About your motivations and about why your posts are flawed.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Doctors never told men to use 'them' to see if they could 'pass.'

Your beliefs are weird.

Of course there was, that's why they were there when the doctors told men to use them to see if they could 'pass'. Not considering that women might not want it or might not want to be punched in the face when asking one to leave.

There was no cultural concern about 'single sex provisions' until gender critical people decided to focus on removing trans women from women's spaces. Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point, only afterward.