Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

374 replies

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 13:17

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
iwishitwouldstartraining · Yesterday 12:12

Helleofabore · Yesterday 10:27

“The Interchangeability of the sexes is part of the human condition. Its what motivated feminism…”

This doesn’t make sense.

Female people and male people are not ‘interchangeable’ for all purposes. Feminism is not about making the sexes interchangeable. It is about making sure that female people are offered the same opportunities as male people. But it is not about considering a female person to be the same as a male person.

Female people are not interchangeable in reproduction roles either. Nor are they interchangeable for single sex purposes at all.

In what way are the sexes considered ‘interchangeable’ ?

I think the argument presented is 'If that Tanni Grey-Thompson wants equality, I'm having her blue badge'.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 12:28

Never heard anyone say the sexes are interchangeable before. Did you mean to use a different word, NorthernLightss? Because that would be an absurd assertion.

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 12:28

I think its relevant that the medical profession pathologized a behaviour, and over time we are encouraged to see it as something innate that we have to accept, support, encourage, promote. And eventually include.

All the orginal professionals did was notice that some men dressed as women. They saw that given the opportunity some men would dress as women all of the time and have surgery and take drugs to change their appearance.

Giving it a code in the DSM allowed these men to claim the surgery and drugs on insurance.

Why are we now expected to believe that its not a choice, but innate? Why are we expected to believe that everyone who wants to promote their gender over their sex is doing it for the same reasons and has the same impact on everyone around them?

Is the teen girl on tumblr in 2015 the same as the adult male in 1950s?

If we cared we would see the difference. Both for safeguarding and understanding the evolution of 'trans'.

Sports see the advantages of trans, so do lots of companies. I can see how the surrogacy companies are using gender in an attempt to remove mother from a child's birth certificate.

So we end up with the umbrella where behaviours that look the same - being gender non conforming in a variety of different ways are seen as identical. And lots of interested parties seeing possibilities.

That is bad in itself, but the confusion around sex and gender is dangerous. Allowing men to conceal their sex or promote the idea that sex isnt relevant for them only benefited predatory men.

Shedmistress · Yesterday 12:35

I have news!

Humans are not I repeat NOT Mr Potato Heads.

That is all.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 12:55

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 12:28

Never heard anyone say the sexes are interchangeable before. Did you mean to use a different word, NorthernLightss? Because that would be an absurd assertion.

Yes... I keep imagining a world where male people are pregnant because sexes are 'interchangeable'.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 15:09

Looks like my thread got derailed by the usual suspects. It's amazing really, because post as a GC on any trans friendly forum and you're bullied off before you can say "I <heart> JKR", but on Britain's, nay the world's, premier forum for allowing GC women to express their views ie MN, the opposite happens, we actually engage with the TRAs, showing real respect and patience. No bigoted group is this.
Anyhow, it looks like my thread to tie trans policies to anti racism moves in sport and healthcare has got lost in the noise.
But I've got something quite major from the interactions of the TRA on here.
For the first time, a view into the Transwomen Are Women mantra, and that's the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model, which includes said natal/biological females (exceptions being the ones who've IDd to being men), plus natal/biological males who've IDd to becoming women (to include DSD males).
Finally got behind the circular logic and ephemeral language of gender and sex.
I'm always up for hearing about new concepts, and this is certainly new, although I'm sure the TRA here will tell me I've had my head in the grey bigoted clouds if I hadn't seen this use of women as a term all along.
Silly me for being so inattentive.
Thanks one and all for contributing.
Keep at it if you feel the thread still has legs.

OP posts:
MrPrettyDamnCosmic · Yesterday 15:18

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 15:09

Looks like my thread got derailed by the usual suspects. It's amazing really, because post as a GC on any trans friendly forum and you're bullied off before you can say "I <heart> JKR", but on Britain's, nay the world's, premier forum for allowing GC women to express their views ie MN, the opposite happens, we actually engage with the TRAs, showing real respect and patience. No bigoted group is this.
Anyhow, it looks like my thread to tie trans policies to anti racism moves in sport and healthcare has got lost in the noise.
But I've got something quite major from the interactions of the TRA on here.
For the first time, a view into the Transwomen Are Women mantra, and that's the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model, which includes said natal/biological females (exceptions being the ones who've IDd to being men), plus natal/biological males who've IDd to becoming women (to include DSD males).
Finally got behind the circular logic and ephemeral language of gender and sex.
I'm always up for hearing about new concepts, and this is certainly new, although I'm sure the TRA here will tell me I've had my head in the grey bigoted clouds if I hadn't seen this use of women as a term all along.
Silly me for being so inattentive.
Thanks one and all for contributing.
Keep at it if you feel the thread still has legs.

the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model

Sorry to contradict but Dr Upton claimed under oath to be a biological female. TRAs interchangeably use female & woman in a deliberately slippery manner.

OldCrone · Yesterday 15:20

The Interchangeability of the sexes is part of the human condition. Its what motivated feminism & trans people are simply an extension of that.

I remember reading the argument that transgenderism is the result of feminism when I first became aware of the new transactivism (which included the bizarre idea of transsexual children) about 10 years ago.

I found it utterly baffling. The idea that men can be women if they say they are is about as far removed from feminism as it is possible to get. But after a bit of thought, I think the argument goes something like this

Feminism is about women wanting equal rights with men and being allowed to do things which have previously been the preserve of men.

The logical leap then says that if women have equality with men, there must be no difference between men and women, and men can be women if they say they are.

Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, but I can't see any other way that people can claim that feminism led to trangenderism. Maybe the PP who made the claim can explain further (but he won't because he never replies to my posts).

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:25

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · Yesterday 15:18

the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model

Sorry to contradict but Dr Upton claimed under oath to be a biological female. TRAs interchangeably use female & woman in a deliberately slippery manner.

Yep, exactly.

Try making a case for the needs and history of female people to be recognised and respected separately from this social group of "women" and you'll soon see how little truth there is behind HowseItGoingNorthernBaileyGret's apoarently reasonable claim to recognise sex as well as gender.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 15:25

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · Yesterday 15:18

the narrative that female is the natal/biological sex category, woman is something quite different, this is the inclusive social construct model

Sorry to contradict but Dr Upton claimed under oath to be a biological female. TRAs interchangeably use female & woman in a deliberately slippery manner.

Maybe Northernlightsss should have a word with the good Doctor.
I mean if they can't all.agree on semantics and linguistic gymnastics, how the hell are they gonna keep bending that arc of history and social justice correctly?
Accuracy in language, and concepts downstream of language, is crucial.
Least of all to convince the 70%+ of Brits that have been taken in by far right mass media campaigns to fascistically keep the "woman" category purely to natal biological females.

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:29

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 15:25

Maybe Northernlightsss should have a word with the good Doctor.
I mean if they can't all.agree on semantics and linguistic gymnastics, how the hell are they gonna keep bending that arc of history and social justice correctly?
Accuracy in language, and concepts downstream of language, is crucial.
Least of all to convince the 70%+ of Brits that have been taken in by far right mass media campaigns to fascistically keep the "woman" category purely to natal biological females.

How are they going to keep it going? Same way they started it. Emotional blackmail, thought terminating soundbites, and exercising power through back room influences on policies and codes of conduct. Any and every way except transparency, respect, open public debate and electoral accountability.

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · Yesterday 15:39

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:29

How are they going to keep it going? Same way they started it. Emotional blackmail, thought terminating soundbites, and exercising power through back room influences on policies and codes of conduct. Any and every way except transparency, respect, open public debate and electoral accountability.

Maybe my two female friends can carry on the discussion with the TIMs they associate with every week.
The first, a work colleague who continually tells her that he's a better woman than she'll ever be, even his periods are better. Yes, seriously.
The other, a customer, who during the week comes in as a standard male with the family, but on "club nights", attends with other TIMs in the mini-est of mini skirts and skimpiest of underwear/pop up bra. And makes a special effort to always follow her into the ladies.
Both of my friends are strong, feisty, inclusive, non bigoted women, I love them both, but both literally shrink into themselves, their voices lower, as they relay these stories to me, both told in no uncertain terms that inclusive language and behaviour expected from them at all times.
I don't know any civil rights movement that carried on this way.

OP posts:
Heggettypeg · Yesterday 18:39

Helleofabore · Yesterday 10:27

“The Interchangeability of the sexes is part of the human condition. Its what motivated feminism…”

This doesn’t make sense.

Female people and male people are not ‘interchangeable’ for all purposes. Feminism is not about making the sexes interchangeable. It is about making sure that female people are offered the same opportunities as male people. But it is not about considering a female person to be the same as a male person.

Female people are not interchangeable in reproduction roles either. Nor are they interchangeable for single sex purposes at all.

In what way are the sexes considered ‘interchangeable’ ?

Feminism is about looking after the baby (recognising and adjusting for the realities of sex difference in a society that has been organised around the male as default) but ditching the bathwater (dismantling the sexist, misogynist mythologies that have been built up around the real fact of sex difference).

Genderism comes in two varieties. One seems to be telling us that the baby should go down the plughole with the bathwater ("Sex is just a social comstruct! Queer everything!"), the other that bathwater on its own counts as a baby. ("I'm a woman too.")

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 19:21

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 18:39

Feminism is about looking after the baby (recognising and adjusting for the realities of sex difference in a society that has been organised around the male as default) but ditching the bathwater (dismantling the sexist, misogynist mythologies that have been built up around the real fact of sex difference).

Genderism comes in two varieties. One seems to be telling us that the baby should go down the plughole with the bathwater ("Sex is just a social comstruct! Queer everything!"), the other that bathwater on its own counts as a baby. ("I'm a woman too.")

Nicely put!

I imagine it as 3 layers.

The outer layer is plain sexism. Girls like pink and baking cupcakes, boys like blue and running multinational compsnies. Bleugh! Just get rid of that. No one needs it.

The inner layer is the immutable facts that cone with our biology and especially reproduction. We aren't as a whole as strong as men, we do deal with periods, pregnancy and early childcare when nursing does demand our time. These things we can never change so we need society to protect us and enable us to participate and reach our potential. So things like women only sports. In particular we need safety nets so we are not forced by financial need to depend on the goodwill of the father or whatever man will take us on in his absence.

The middle layer is the interesting one. This is the layer where we shouldn't need special accommodation because of our sex, but the way society has been structured for men and their needs rather than ours, we do. This is where all that structural disadvantage and unconscious bias sits, along with the massive burden of being constantly sexualised and/or parentised. Domestic violence and control sits here as well. This is where over time I hope we get to a place the protections aren't needed because society isn't built the same way, but that's a long long struggle so for now, we do.

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:25

Helleofabore · Yesterday 10:27

“The Interchangeability of the sexes is part of the human condition. Its what motivated feminism…”

This doesn’t make sense.

Female people and male people are not ‘interchangeable’ for all purposes. Feminism is not about making the sexes interchangeable. It is about making sure that female people are offered the same opportunities as male people. But it is not about considering a female person to be the same as a male person.

Female people are not interchangeable in reproduction roles either. Nor are they interchangeable for single sex purposes at all.

In what way are the sexes considered ‘interchangeable’ ?

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, its the cognitive & psychological traits they share that makes them interchangeable that's why apes don't qualify for voting rights, work place access, banking access etc etc.

That's not to say that barriers to opportunities (for example reproductive rights) that arise from biological differences aren't a part of gender access equity but that they are not what the premise to granting equality was.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 22:30

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:25

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, its the cognitive & psychological traits they share that makes them interchangeable that's why apes don't qualify for voting rights, work place access, banking access etc etc.

That's not to say that barriers to opportunities (for example reproductive rights) that arise from biological differences aren't a part of gender access equity but that they are not what the premise to granting equality was.

Apes? Wtf?

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:30

Shedmistress · Yesterday 08:14

If this was the case then why didnt men who wanted to marry men just stick a dress on and get married anyway?

Why did the law have to change to allow single sex marriages?

Because identity is an individually self determined pursuit. Its up to the individual butch female or effeminate male what they associate more to that defines them: Their natal biology or their gender. Hence they can identify as trans or not.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 22:32

Are you smoking Northernlightsss, is that what the username is about?

MarieDeGournay · Yesterday 22:32

MarcTheGenderSkeptic ·Surely you must believe the Darlington nurses, Jo Phoenix v OU, Nurse Peggie, FW Scotland at the SC, Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey etc are all agents for the cause?

Northernlightsss No. I suspect they are a fringe true believers of the GC movement albeit a useful idiots for far right ascension. [sic]

Just checking I've got this right - You're calling Prof Phoenix, Nurse Sandie Peggie, Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey... 'useful idiots'?

If they are idiots, I'd rather be an idiot like them than the non-idiot that I assume you claim to be.

JanesLittleGirl · Yesterday 22:38

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:25

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, its the cognitive & psychological traits they share that makes them interchangeable that's why apes don't qualify for voting rights, work place access, banking access etc etc.

That's not to say that barriers to opportunities (for example reproductive rights) that arise from biological differences aren't a part of gender access equity but that they are not what the premise to granting equality was.

You have, through many usernames, clung to these cognitive and psychological traits. In one of your previous iterations you even had an attempt at listing them. That was an embarrassing list of stereotypes. Would you like to have another go?

Evoker · Yesterday 22:38

It has been a good derail though, hasn't it? Anyone want to drag it back to it's original premise?

Somehow, I feel that would really piss someone off.

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:39

OldCrone · Yesterday 08:23

So what are the "sociological associations" that decide whether someone is a man or a woman?

We know what the "sexual reproductive associations" are which decide someone's sex. What are the equivalent "sociological associations" deciding gender?

Socially constructed norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that different societies associate with being a woman, man, girl, or boy.

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:42

Helleofabore · Yesterday 09:13

There is significant dishonesty in denying when a group forces destabilisation of reference language such as ‘woman’ by making it meaningless, while then simultaneously relying on the reference term being still understood and used in its original definition to communicate the group’s identity.

When it comes to the language used to describe female people, it is misogynistic.

Again, this is patently false given the prefix 'trans' distinguishes natal females from trans women.

Minasama · Yesterday 22:44

Very interesting post, thank you. I had thought this was due to strong lobbying by Stonewall but realise they are just UK.

The thing I can’t get over is how pilloried JK Rowling has been for her statements in support of women.

I normally have zero interest in the trans topic except for my anger when it impacts me (dirty mixed toilets etc) but this was illuminating.

Northernlightsss · Yesterday 22:45

HipTightOnions · Yesterday 09:26

All individuals have every right to self-determination of their identity.

’Woman & man’ categories are based on sociological associations.

Says who?

Lol, its an accepted Human Right that all individuals have a right to self determination.

’Woman & man’ categories are based on sociological associations.

Says who?Reality.

Swipe left for the next trending thread