What TRAs or 'gender' advocates and 'gender critical' feminists agree on.

So to bring that back to the thread title, I guess we agree that "kindness" is important, but define and enact it differently? Obviously, that's massively, problematically generalised, but I think as a trend has some truth.

The rudeness is what stood out to me.

It feels insane to be explaining this to an adult woman

don't expect you can drag me down into the mud with you

No wonder exhortations to be kind expressed in this way are met with an eye roll. And calling out hypocrisy and performative kindness enables more meaningful kindness.

I said on another thread that kindness requires a concession from someone - in showing it, one person gives time, effort, or even just thought, to another. In a sense, it's only really meaningful when it's as freely given as possible, and certainly without coercive pressure or emotional blackmail ("Be kind!" and the language used above).

So meaningful kindness also means questioning which demographics are pressured to be kind at their own expense - and respecting their right to question that (a kindness in itself).

The altruism thing fascinating - that question of, to what extent is there even such a thing as selflessness, if kindness is actually driven by the selfish imperative to belong? Etymologically, "kind"'s associated with "kin" and what's "natural". If it is about all that, then that really shows how artificial kindness can be - just fitting in with the social standards of the time in order to protect yourself. And that suggests how much more meaningful a kind of kindness it is to have the courage to step back and ask, "Yes, but why?" and "Is it, really?" first.

In contrast, that artificial, fitting-in side of kindness is really pronounced in this debate. You see it for what it really is in how readily and unthinkingly the ugly language of moral censure appears. That's not going to be about encouraging something genuine and beautiful. It's is about protecting and promoting one's own status as "kind" - and therefore "safe". It's also about instinctual, frightened boundary-building - a closing off ("I am, you're not - so there!") as opposed to more meaningfully "inclusive" reaching out ("I can see what you're saying, but I'd argue that...")

Does this include TRAs?

Because if you believe that it should/does then maybe you should tell them.

All the death threats,
Rape threats
Doxxing etc.
Name calling
cancelling
has come from their side.

Where as what has come from the GC side is telling someone that they can't change sex and "no".

But if TRAs have there way consent will become a thing of the past.

Yet you are so rude in your interactions. Are you genuinely not aware of how your comments are coming across?

I think that he is perfectly well aware of how rude he is. He is not posting in good faith but is trying to provoke in order to screenshot a "gotcha" when someone snaps back.

I agree with you for the most part, but I can see that men taking personal responsibility for men's health and working for a fix that doesn't put the emotional and mental load onto women to sort out is one thing that a man who wants to be part of the solution and not perpetuate the patriarchy can do.

There are of course different definitions of feminism and according to some definitions it is literally impossible for any man to be a feminist. However, under a definition where men can be feminists if they uphold that women are no less important and valid and fully human than men and there should be no disadvantages that women must simply accept purely due to their sex, then working to create such services for men is an intrinsic part of such feminism precisely because this is men's responsibility to deal with, to work on themselves, and not women's problem or job.

The phrase TWAW in tweets but not in the sheets exists for a reason.

Lots of people want to accommodate people who identify as trans, but its rarely unconditionally. There are limits to where and who, that doesn't exist for women.

Therefore, they know there are differences.

Its difficult to argue this with intelligent friends because it exposes a lack of critical thinking neither you or your friends want to highlight.

What you want to ask is how can I get them to acknowledge they know men cannot literally become women without them losing face.

If we wait for every stubborn intelligent women who wont acknowledge the truth, nothing will ever be done. Its best not to talk about it to them. They aren't part of the solution anyway.

LOL! I do care about other people, thank you very much, but I won't put any work into supporting ALL of them, because that's just not possible. I have to choose, and men (whether they identify as women or not) are not at the top of the list. Doesn't mean I don't want the best for them!

And if you don't want people to discuss what you write, then don't write it, easy.

I think we are kidding ourselves if we assume that more than 50% of people would even understand the question.

Here is a link that directly contradicts your claim. Where is your evidence?

50% vs 35% think you should be able to identify as a different gender
Over 50% vs. 30% think increased rights for trans people pose a genuine risk to women's rights.
About 60% don't want trans identifying men in female changing rooms vs. 20% who do
For women's sports 80% don't want trans identifying men included while 15% do
yougov.com/en-gb/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

There is no evidence that “most women believe TWAW”.

While some people might say superficially that they ‘agree’ in the very same poll, when asked about male people with transgender identities accessing female single sex provisions, that trend reverses. Meaning that when pushed to confirm this ‘belief’, many of those saying they believe prove that they don’t.

Considering there are now many polls across the world which show that the majority of females do not support male people accessing a range of female single sex provisions it is not just inaccurate to state ‘most women believe TWAW’, it is a false claim.

If you want the links, at lunch, I can link you up with those polls.

I am saying it is about 50/50 when you put all that together. I think it would be bordering on delusion to say otherwise.

Sorry but you are the one who is deluded. It depends on which question is asked but support for "trans" people is way less than that & getting worse every time the public is polled.

Over 50% vs. 30% think increased rights for trans people pose a genuine risk to women's rights.
About 60% don't want trans identifying men in female changing rooms vs. 20% who do
For women's sports 80% don't want trans identifying men included while 15% do

yougov.com/en-gb/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

I think it depends.

I don't think we should Be Kind when debating ideas or laws. I want facts not fluffy caring slogans when looking at ideas.

I do think we should Be Kind when interacting with people in reality. Holding a door open, not saying "Christ your hair looks awful," offering to help carry a pushchair up the stairs etc. Being respectful of other people's needs whilst simultaneously expecting them to be respectful or mine.

Be Kind as a slogan is pernicious because it is used to tell women to ignore their needs in favour of pandering to someone else's demands.

Understandably, many women are so over that shit.

I am friends with people who disagree with me on this. Three of the people I love most in the world disagree with me on this.

There are enough things on heaven and earth we can use to find common cause; we can agree to think about gender identity differently and still have much in common.

AFAICS 'gender advocates and TRAs' don't seem to share a set of beliefs, let alone a coherent set, so I find it impossible to answer the question you posed at the top of the thread @WrongKindOfFeminist. Sorry😕

Sorry @BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp , realise that looks like it was aimed at you

Actually yes, people should be kind.

I'm not going to bang on about how social media has degraded empathy again (even though that's clearly a huge factor in how this debate has toxified), but if someone says you should care about people and your immediate response is to roll your eyes, then be my guest, but don't expect you can drag me down into the mud with you.

I don't believe that all women are more oppressed than all men.

I do believe that all women rely on legislation and resources that men don't, and that the legislation and resources can be taken away.

For instance, for women, the right to work is underpinned by living in a society where it is assumed that contraception is widely available and that a woman can control her fertility. I don't think it's a co-incidence that the Sex Discrimination Act was passed at the same time that the pill became widely available.

It's not a question of winning some kind of oppression competition. It's a question of being able to use clear language to talk about different needs.

Being female is ultimate femininity

Last heard in a Victorian parlouroom in 1897.

This is why we see this ideology as promoting limiting stereotypes - whether through self-interested conflation of the two, or misunderstanding as words are appropriated, this "female = femininity" is becoming more common.

Cf. the Barbie and GI Joe spectrum - after 50 precious years of understanding these oppressive associations, little girls as spice and all things nice is once again being taught in a school near you.