You now describe your account of gender-critical women as an “everyday theory”, not a scientific one. Fine, but that means it is a hypothesis about women’s motives, not an established explanation. References to British cultural habits do not demonstrate that women who defend sex-based categories are driven by class envy, sexual anxiety or internalised misogyny. I do not need to invent a rival diagnosis of your motives to point out that yours is unevidenced.
Again, I never claimed 'proof'. I simply supported the likelihood based on distinctive cultural influences from other countries. To pretend my theory is totally unsupported by the self evident cultural differences points to denial as a unconscious defence mechanism that distorts objective reality to shield the mind from severe anxiety perhaps?
It is interesting but not surprising watching social constructionists denounce obvious cultural influences when convenient.
I am also happy to distinguish the substantive argument from gratuitous rhetoric. Mocking somebody’s clothes or presentation can be rude and unnecessary. I do not need to defend every expression ever used by every gender-critical person. But that does not make recognising sex an attack on femininity. A woman choosing make-up is not a stereotype; treating make-up, clothing or mannerisms as evidence that somebody is a woman is. Men should be free to be feminine and women masculine without either being told that their presentation reveals an inner sex.
Strawman. I never claimed recognising sex is an attack on femininity. I specifically said using feminine expression/presentation to mock people or claim they are 'brain washed' was.
Your point that behaviour may reflect both biology and socialisation changes nothing here. Average behavioural differences, whatever their causes, do not define reproductive sex and cannot establish that identity changes it.
Strawman. Never stated it did. You may want to reflect upon why you feel the compulsion to misrepresent uncomfortable comments.
Your analogy with religion is revealing. I can respect a religious person without professing their creed, and without reorganising material categories around it. In precisely the same way, adults should be free to identify, dress and live as they wish and should not be harassed. But respecting a person does not require everybody else to adopt that person’s beliefs about sex, or to concede that identity determines membership of every sex-based group.
Strawman. Never claimed it did.
Nor is a female boundary “supremacy”. Supremacy asserts superior status or dominion. A female category protecting privacy, dignity, fair competition, recovery from male violence or freedom of association does neither. Equal citizenship has never meant a right of admission to every group or facility.
We've done this already as in 'proportionality' & the fact GC's don't believe gender qualifies for rights balancing.
I agree that context and proportionality matter. But “proportionality” is not a magic word that completes the balancing exercise. Under section 7B of Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act, reasonableness in indirect-discrimination cases includes the extent of disadvantage, whether it can be mitigated, and whether it is proportionate to the result sought. That requires examining both sides and the available alternatives. It does not mean that gender identity prevails unless women can prove that a particular male is about to assault somebody.
Duh! Welcome to Australia!
Your material on cultural imperialism describes a theory; it does not establish that the theory explains this dispute. To do that, you would need evidence that identifiable media structures manufactured the relevant beliefs and displaced local women’s prior understanding, rather than reporting a dispute that Australian women were already having. Labelling one side “grassroots” and the other “top down” simply assumes the conclusion. Even a genuinely top-down campaign might make a true claim, while a grassroots movement might make a false one.
The evidence is no broad grass roots campaigning or public awareness from prior to the saturation of anti trans media coverage. Now if you are going to pretend mass media propaganda has no impact on public perception, history begs to differ.
www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm
You also say that transgender is a sociological category, not a biological one, and that nobody claims reproductive sex changes. That is an important concession. But it leaves the central question unanswered: why should a sociological identity automatically displace a biological category in provision whose purpose is sex-based? The existence of transgender identities across cultures establishes that such people exist. It does not by itself establish an entitlement to membership of every opposite-sex category.
Because harms aren't a one way street & as such require balancing.
Careful, your bio realist supremacy is showing!
Recognising women as female does not reduce women to reproductive organs. It identifies the sex class historically affected by pregnancy, reproductive control, sex discrimination and male violence. Women do not cease to be cognitively equal because their sex is sometimes relevant. The sexist error was inferring intellectual inferiority from female biology, not acknowledging female biology at all.
When you centre the feminist struggle only around biological differences it kinda takes away from the bigger ongoing struggle of equality that's legitimised by the sexes commonalties. You act as if this is no longer an issue when it clearly is.
Nor does accepting some female boundaries lead logically to segregated streets, workplaces and classrooms. A mixed school can have female toilets and changing rooms. A mixed workplace can provide sex-specific intimate facilities. Male teachers and colleagues occupy regulated professional roles; that does not give them access to female facilities as fellow users. Context-specific boundaries are the opposite of universal segregation.
If the claim is male violence requires segregation then the natural conclusion is it should apply in areas where violence is most prevalent. And if you think sexual harassment & assault only occurs in toilets & change rooms at work & school I have news.
The comparison of sexual violence totals in workplaces, schools and toilets does not establish your case either. People spend incomparably more time at school and work, so raw totals do not provide equivalent risk measures. In any event, toilets and changing facilities concern privacy and dignity, not merely the statistical probability of assault.
Apart from the fact upto 90% of women know their attackers, public toilets don't rate in terms of places where sexual violence occurs. If you can show evidence where 1 in 2 of women are sexually harassed in public toilets I'd be very interested.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/sexual-violence
Your description of Australian exemptions is also too simple. Federal law contains several differently framed provisions concerning sport, particular accommodation and services, voluntary bodies and temporary exemptions, while state and territory laws also operate. But your acceptance of hospitals, refuges, prisons and sport is significant for another reason: it concedes that recognising sex and excluding members of the opposite sex can be legitimate. That is inconsistent with describing the principle itself as patriarchal, supremacist or the beginning of a slide into general segregation. The real dispute is where the boundary should be drawn and why.
It's not inconsistent because harm not sex is the qualifying factor.
Where harms genuinely operate in both directions, both should be specified and weighed. Private and unisex alternatives matter because they may accommodate gender identity without abolishing a communal female category. Merely asserting that public toilets have not received the same legal treatment as other settings does not demonstrate that women have no privacy or dignity interests there. Existing law is the current legal answer; it is not evidence that the policy balance is morally or politically beyond challenge.
Strawman. Never said it was beyond challenge.
I will concede one point plainly: asking whether you were “a dude” was unnecessary. Your sex cannot reliably be inferred from anonymous prose, and your argument should stand or fall independently of it. Sex realism does not require defending guesses based on writing style.
Appreciate your consistency. And I concede not all gender critical proponents are a monolith of walking inconsistencies.
Likewise, broad democratic consultation is desirable. But the absence of a large, visible campaign is not evidence of consent, and rights claims do not become legitimate only after achieving mass popularity. That principle must apply equally to the adoption of gender-identity policies and to their reconsideration.
Strawman. Never claimed rights require achieving mass popularity to be considered legitimate. My point was about no broad based grass roots activism or concerns.
The excursions into Sal Grover’s motives, crowdfunding and Rupert Murdoch remain irrelevant. If you are not offering them as reasons to reject the argument, they do not answer the argument.
What argument? That's she's a grifter & he's a champion propagandist? I believe that's self evident.
It is also difficult to maintain simultaneously that gender-critical politics dominates the media through a powerful propaganda system and that the movement’s inability to mobilise Australians proves its impotence.
Because distinctive cultural pressures matter like class & victorian vestiges as I have repeatedly said. Australia has a more distinctive focus on egalitarian culture & as such It's know for being more 'easy going' & accepting of diversity so its probably more unlikely to be less vulnerable to scaremongering propaganda campaigns.
I personally prefer change rooms not to be open as like many women find undressing in front of strangers discomforting but its not something I'm prepared to fight a battle on. Its annoying but not so much that I would consider 'oppressive' & I suspect many women don't care about single sex spaces in toilets in Australia as we aren't as precious or demanding on issues we consider as trivial.