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

No.

It's tough shit because sex exists and will not cease to exist.

This isn't a problem I can fix.

I would love to have a magic wand where people can change sex. The trouble is they can't.

In law, all transpeople's legal protections are enshrined by virtue of their sex. You can only define a transperson by their sex. They are someone who identifies as the sex they are not. It is an essential part of the problem. Erasure of sex erases their own protections. Because otherwise anyone could claim to be trans and not even bother to identify as anything. I could claim I'm a transwoman and have all the protections a transwoman has.

Equally for healthcare it comes back to certain medical conditions being sex specific. And even ones which aren't presenting differently in each sex and requiring different treatments because of sex. This isn't something that gender critical people can magical change. Doseages for men and women are hugely different. Doctors NEED to know for safeguarding reasons. If there is confusion or deliberate concealment by transpeople this puts their health at risk. And the doctor is at risk of negligence if they do this. This isn't a far situation for doctors. Medical forms MUST refer to sex not gender at all times as a result.

And this is why I say tough shit.

Because this is in the best interests of transpeople. Including some I deeply care a lot about.

Failure to get this through thick heads will harm a lot of transpeople long term.

I think you are confusing 'feminine' and 'female'. What you are describing is fundamentally different because a man is being judged on his behaviour and a woman is being judged on her sex.

See, I don't think TRAs agree with us GCs on this. They think that if a child prefers toys/clothes of the opposite sex that they are the opposite sex. They try to find the ultimate gender expression (clothes, manners, job, hobbies) that will make people think they are the opposite sex.

They really do seem as if they are all in favour of gender stereotypes and trying to make everyone shoehorn into them, and make their body match a set of stereotypes. They tell you that if you adhere to any stereotypes of your own sex (e.g. long hair/makeup/anything floral for a woman) then you must have a gender identity corresponding to your sex.

"Women here are overwhelmingly polite and willing to listen [...] They won't be kind about it, mind you"

Well which is it? And is it at least possible to acknowledge, rightly or wrongly, that this attitude is far more likely to increase tensions rather than ease them?

It's like having an argument with someone when you realise you've lost; it's not as simple as turning around and immediately admitting you were wrong.

Transpeople know they've lost, and that the tide is finally turning against them, but just being blunt and expecting things to change overnight is going to provoke a backlash. It shouldn't, but it will.

It's like having an argument with someone when you realise you've lost; it's not as simple as turning around and immediately admitting you were wrong.

Transpeople know they've lost, and that the tide is finally turning against them, but just being blunt and expecting things to change overnight is going to provoke a backlash. It shouldn't, but it will.

Thought it might be useful to find points of commonality.

Ever the optimist! 😊

1. Gender stereotypes can be restrictive and limiting.

@RedToothBrush

"The phrase is tough shit."

I think if there's a thread on commonalities between TRAs and GCs and the only thing you can offer is 'tough shit', then you're maybe not engaging with it as it was intended.

"Women here are overwhelmingly polite and willing to listen [...] They won't be kind about it, mind you"

Well which is it? And is it at least possible to acknowledge, rightly or wrongly, that this attitude is far more likely to increase tensions rather than ease them?

I disagree. Women here are overwhelmingly polite and willing to listen and debate. They don't have much patience with some tired and nonsensical arguments, that's true, but if you want to present an actually factual and reasoned opinion, they'll be happy to debate it with you. They won't be kind about it, mind you, but they'll be honest and thorough, which personally I value far more.

It seems the poster is conflating random abusive people in the street with being gender critical. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, just poorly worded.

But there's always going to be a minority on any side in a debate that won't argue in good faith, regardless of what they believe, which can sour the whole conversation. That's why social media & forums just aren't the best medium for discussing things like this.

So who would one address if one wanted to have a conversation that acknowledges that sex sometimes matters and can't be changed?

could make transpeople at least somewhat wary of more extreme GCs

I'd be interested to know who you think are these "more extreme GCs" - what views do they hold that are extreme and how/where are they expressed?

Because this is a discussion forum. For discussion. Why fucking raise anything if that's your response?

On the contrary. If they came here and argued in good faith, they would be welcome. That doesn't mean that people here would necessarily agree with them, but they would absolutely get a polite debate. I mean, even a lot of the obvious trolls get such polite debates!

And even the worst ones don't get banned just for being here, do they? That's a lot more than TRAs would afford a GC person in their own spaces.

@nicepotoftea
Another issue is that the 'no debate' line makes it very difficult to engage with anyone.

I'm sure I'm going to get all sort of flames that'll prove my point here, but I think acting as if TRAs are the only ones who invoke 'no debate' is a bit disingenuous.

When I've brought stuff like that up before, I get all sort of replies saying that GCs 'aren't a monolith' (which, obviously I agree with), then treating all transpeople (read: transpeople, not TRAs) as a monolith. I suppose this is the polarisation I've been trying to illustrate.

Then why raise it at all?

@Seethlaw Only one side of the spectrum is polarised. Women here are open to discussion with TRAs, while any GC person trying to discuss with trans people in their places will immediately be banned.

I also find that a little disingenuous when I've seen some of the extremes on this site; if a TRA came here and started a discussion, they wouldn't exactly be welcomed with open arms.

Yes, but there are also pretty significant obstacles facing transpeople; they're more at risk of violent crime and there is a genuine crisis WRT medical care for them.

And before any whataboutism which I'm sure is going to be thrown; yes, there is a minority of violent transpeople - that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the majority of non-violent transpeople who are at higher risk.

Similarly, the lack of medical care (doctors not knowing how to care for transpeople) does bear some similarity to medical misogyny. I'd hope that there's some commonality there.

I think it's the whole 'sympathy vs empathy' argument which is overlooked in a lot of internet discussions; disagreeing with TRAs can lead some GC people to bury their head in the sand about issues that transpeople do face - when I brought them up in another thread I was immediately met with a chorus of "Well, what do you want me to do about it?", as if acknowledging a problem is the same as demanding an answer.

You'd have to bury your head in the sand to ignore the fact that transpeople do get harassment, e.g. on the street, and I can understand that that may make them more jumpy; in the same way that catcalling when I was younger made me wary of all men, I can see how everyday harassment could make transpeople at least somewhat wary of more extreme GCs. It certainly doesn't excuse the actions of violent TRAs, and it's not conducive to discussion because it does make commonality seem less achievable on both sides.

I'm not claiming that there's an answer here, but I do think that polarisation on extreme ends of the spectrum, particularly on social media, is one of the biggest barriers to having any kind of civilised discussion.