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

On what questions are ‘better data needed’ and in order to meet what needs?

I feel on quite a lot of issues in this field we have a ton of data, but absolutely zero agreement on its implications.

For example, we have enormous amounts of data on sport performance variation between men and women, particularly in sports that make a lot of money like golf and football. But we’ve just spent a ludicrous 25 years or so in a mess because an athlete with CAIS argued that both she AND any male person who felt female should be able to compete in the Olympics. Literally the entire sport argument stemmed from that.

To me it is obvious that the excellent data we have on quite a lot of things (to take a few examples: sport performance - child development and psychology - numbers of female prisoners vs male prisoners convicted of sex crimes - how to write a solid question for the census without making a complete Godawful screwup - the difference between policy made by activists and policy that takes a broad range of views and needs into account - the impact of trying to operate a specialist service which is overwhelmed with referrals as if it is functioning normally) needs to be applied, not studied over and over again by rewriting ‘men’ as ‘transgender females’ and getting jobs off the novelty of our analysis.

"Better data is needed" is not going to work as a point of agreement unless there is first agreement on the definition of "better" - because there are people on both sides who would only consider data to be "better" if it supports their existing position. There are matters of faith and belief at play here and it is difficult to apply the scientific method in such circumstances, so many proposed pathways of genuine scientific enquiry have been shut down for being inherently transphobic to even formulate the question that the proposed research intends to gather data on, while data showing that a high percentage of self-selecting people who chose to answer this survey have experienced X is upheld as good research. Equally I wonder how the GC side would take it if rigorous scientific proof emerged for a reliable method to identify which people are definitely going to be in the category of those who will only find peace through body-modification-surgery (though I am not sure an ethical technique exists to generate such proof)

Depressing isn't it? I was reading something recently about how GI has broken the social contract. The generally accepted conventions that allows citizens to rub along together, respecting differences and making accomodations when necessary.

Sadly extreme transactivism blows this apart by intimidating and bullying people out of what they know to be true. That there are 2 sexes, that women and children at times are vulnerable due to their specific characteristics and that being allowed to speak freely is essential for a democratic society.

As soon as you hear a politician uttering TWAW, women can have a penis or "it doesn't matter if some children are sterilised and harmed via puberty blockers - it's for the greater good" then you know they're intellectually and morally incapable of being an effective leader of people.

The damage done is immense and while we're watching institutions and people slowly reversing over that golden bridge, the casualties are massive.

We have a winner.

Gender stereotypes can be restrictive and limiting

Nope, many of the TRAs are living breathing stereotypes

Everyone involved is human and has human rights.

Nope, if TRAs believed this they wouldn't be trying to remove/reduce others rights.

Violence and harm is wrong.
and
Violence against women is a serious problem

The violence and threats of violence are coming from the TRAs

Better data is needed

You might have stumbled upon one here, but remember that TRAs have refused any data, reports, studies or anything that means that trans can be 'measured' or defined.

People should be free to express themselves

Yes, but only as so far as it doesn't conflict with others rights see your second point.

Inclusivity means everyone.
No it doesn't.
If inclusivity meant everyone, every group/body/organisation/society/association would have to be open to the entire human race.

The word 'inclusive' is from the same root as 'enclose' - to enclose is to put a barrier around something to keep the inside in and the outside out, so to speak,
A sheep enclosure is to keep the sheep in, and, ideally, the wolves out.

So for a group to be 'inclusive', it must include everybody who belongs to the category included in that group. But it does not have to include everybody, that would be silly.

So I'm not going to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of discrimination law if I can't join a support group specifically for people who are left-handed, or for people who own Maseratis.
They are inclusive as long as they welcome all left-handed people, and all Maserati owners.
Your definition of inclusivity would mean that I could insist on membership, despite being right-handed and not even liking Maseratis - too showy😏

So a group that is designated as being for all women - and the Supreme Court has made it clear what 'woman' means - only has to be open to all women to be inclusive.

If it was also open to men, it would not be an inclusive women's group, it would just be a inclusive human being group, and there are plenty of thriving, lively, human being groups out there to join and enjoy

I can. They don't like the Good Law Project or Helen Webberley and think they are grifters.

I love you.

Pineapple doesn't belong on pizza

That's as batshit crazy as a man who thinks he can be a woman just because he says so.

No I agree. They are human, but they're not necessarily seen as.

I don't think women are seen as human. See the Amnesty report for reference.

I honestly can’t think of anything I’ve seen from a TRA that I agree with.

Noooooooooooo!

They justify their violence by saying they are doing it in 'self-defense' against the harm/violence that has been done to them. They are being attacked so they have to use violence to defend themselves and their community from "genocide" being perpetuated against them.

Mental gymnastics.

There's not quite enough agreement even on your first point @WrongKindOfFeminist . Yes Gender Critical Feminists believe that Gender stereotypes can be restrictive and limiting. TRA/'Gender' advocates need to believe that whilst they are restrictive and limiting, it is important for them to believe in the truth and validity of the stereotypes as applies to the majority of boringpeople so that the special Transfolk have something to transgress and rebel against. If the stereotypes were eliminated it would be impossible to be Trans at all, so Gender Critical Feminists' efforts to eliminate them must be resisted.

Inclusivity means everyone.

Diversity means everyone.

Kindess and respect are good things.

No one should ever be left without a safe, accessible, dignified provision or service.

1. Gender stereotypes can be restrictive and limiting.

Tran ideology would instantly collapse without gender stereotyping. There's no other way for a man to pretend he's a woman, other than adopting the stereotypes of the opposite sex.

2...Everyone involved is human and has human rights.

Hopefully everyone agrees about this!

3...Violence and harm is wrong.

TRAs have battered women, lunged at them, poured stuff on them, blackened their eyes, and constantly threaten them with rape and violence.

4....Violence against women is a serious problem.

It is, and it's perpetuated by men, some of whom are TRAs. Sexual assault is over represented by trans identified men in prison

5....Better data is needed.

It is. It's anathema to TRAs.

6....People should be free to express themselves.

Up to point. Wear clothes that you like, not fetishise.

What's that? One out of six? 😄

There's a song from the musical South Pacific about being an incurable optimist,
I hear the human race
Is fallin' on its face
And hasn't very far to go
....,
But I'm stuck like a dope
With a thing called hope,

Unfortunately, the hook of the song hasn't aged well:
I'm only a cockeyed optimist.....😄

I'd like to join you because I'm capable of Pollyanna-grade optimism myself, OP, BUT I have to agree with PPs that the absence of agreed meanings make it impossible.

For example, there are transpeople who will agree enthusiastically that women only spaces are not only desirable but necessary and should be protected by law.

Great - something we can all agree with!

Well, no - because they also say that TWAW. so TW are 100% entitled to use these 'women-only' spaces.

'All people should have human rights' should be a no-brainer, until you see what they mean by 'Trans rights are human rights' = another definition dilemma.

The problem with finding common ground is that trans ideology is not 'grounded', it has a factual void at its centre, and the arguments that orbit it shift and change to fend off any direct fact-based challenge to the non-fact that humans can change sex.

Except being "non-binary" for oneself only works if you pretend the rest of humanity fit into rigid gender straightjackets just because they don't deny their sexed bodies. It's very much the new "not like other girls".

Well they think "violence and harm" and being "unsafe' is GC people using words.
But TRA hitting Maria and Julie, issuing bomb threats, throwing things, smashing windows, pounding on windows to disrupt meeting and vandalism are not violence because they are so stunning and brave.

So yes, I agree consensus on most things is impossible due to the lack of shared definitions.

On point 1, you've clearly never spent time on trans Reddit, such as r/mtf, where users' overarching ambition is to be "cute" and "soft" "girlies" (deliberately leaving aside the more unsavoury aspects here). It's all about jettisoning the stereotypes attached to your own sex in order to double down on those attached to the other. Worse than that, the very idea of being a man is woman becomes ALL about stereotypes. See also: "female brain", also known as neurosexism.

"Gender is about social pressure and stereotypes applied on people because of their sex."

Aren't we in danger though of supporting the idea that you can be any "gender" you like if we totally deny all and any stereotypes. So for example, I believe that women have a far lower natural propensity to violence and cruelty than men. I also believe that they're far less likely to abandon their children than men. And I also think that very few 50 year old women would want to get into the pants of the 17 year old male office junior. Are these stereotypes?

I was in agreement with you, until I wasn't.

I don't think TRAs do agree on that - violence and threats seem to be the go-to solution to anyone disagreeing with them.

I'm not at all sure if this would work without an agreement on the definition of terms, otherwise the goal posts will be constantly moving. If one talks about violence against women one will be met with well, of course we al agree that transwomen are women etc. Ditto female, biological etc.
The other day I saw someone arguing that the thing that is fixed and immutable is gender identity, and that sex is the one that is changeable, I can't see how communication is at all possible when peoples use of words is forcing them to mean the opposite, the language has to have some sort of agreed meaning.

It would also make people playing about with post-modernism to damn well do it properly.