"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

I think the point is there is no gender as a standalone phenomenon.
There are gender stereotypes, which exist, and gender identity, which we've defined. You've disagreed with @BiologicalRobot that gender doesn't exist, brought up gender stereotypes and gender identity, then retreated back to 'gender' again. You did coin a good definition of GI though: identifying with gender stereotypes. Other than that you're arguing in circles. Have a good day.

But à TIM has exactly the same rights as any other male and TIF the same as any other female. What other rights do they think they should be entitled to?

So if sex and gender are different as you’re saying, and transpeople recognise that, why do they demand access to spaces designated for the opposite sex?

You're confusing an entitlement to the same rights as a claim to be a member of the same group. Two very different things

Lol, if that was the case we wouldn't have needed the SC judgment, would we?

desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes.

Its desiring to be perceived as the gender associated with the stereotypes. Thats why trans people call themselves trans gender & not trans sexual.

Ha, always good to post a definition in quotes without attribution. Can you look up woman in your dictionary too?

I don't want to speak for the pp but it seemed to me that they were referring to the term 'gender' as it is used: as shorthand for an unknowable, unquestionable stated gender identity which must be taken as somehow sacred.

Your definition of GI: 'recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes' is actually pretty good. I'll add it to mine: Recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes and desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes. Happy with that. One minor change to reflect that we can't know what someone else truly feels:
Recognising (or claiming to recognise) a commonality between oneself & stereotypes and desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes.
I'm genuinely delighted. That's a decent definition of gender identity imo.

Er, this is the quote I was replying to which claimed gender did not exist all:

"They still don't understand that a lot of us do not believe in gender at all. It does not exist so it cannot be acquired outside, inside, or both."

And in any case, gender is defined as:

"the socially constructed roles, behaviours , expressions, and identities that a society considers appropriate for men, women, and other gender identities.

Gender identity is simply identifying with these expectations/stereotypes as in recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes. So to say its just a desire to be seen a certain way is a very limited superficial understanding.

The distinction between gender stereotypes (which obviously exist) and gender identity (which is nothing more than a desire to be perceived a certain way) has been explained perhaps hundreds of times over the years here.

Edited for a typo.

?

Are you okay?

Did you ever explain why you thought Churchill was in the A Team?

Are you seriously suggesting that gender critical feminists don't posit that sex stereotypes exist?

Wrong. An atheist doesn’t need religion to exist for their own atheism to exist.

They are twisting themselves into knots because some of the observances are real- for example this post

"I reckon several things are going on. People know abuse of all sorts goes on: rape, sexual, physical and mental abuse etc, to both women and men, young and old.. The figures are shocking: unless we live in a cupboard, we will all know a victim.

But the person committing such acts cannot be my mate at work; cannot be my golfing partner; cannot be that lunching lady. We're awesome, and no-one we know can be bad. So when my friend's wife appears with a black eye, I accept that she walked into a brick column without question"

This is completely reasonable but the poster uses this as a way of putting them back into the victim mindset

"Therefore the abuse must be caused by an out-group; preferably one I don't know any member of. For many, the outgroup seems to be ethnic minorities.
But many middle-class people can't blame ethnic minorities, as that would be racist.

No, there needs to be another outgroup, preferably one they feel is a bit weird. And I'm sad to say that it appears trans people are that target for many.
(I'm a middle-aged CIS male, if that matters.)"

At no point have any of the posters established that

a) all men over the age of 13 are stronger than women- inclusive of transwomen.

b) most assaults happen to women for sexual purposes rather than to maime or kill like for men.

c) women are most at risk from men in private spaces as oppose to public and that risk increases when women are removing their clothes.

But you do because gender critical feminist doctrine is specifically about resisting socially constructed gender stereotypes. In other words, if gender didn't exist there would be nothing to resist.

"Delusion"?

They don’t believe we are our acquired gender inside,
They still don't understand that a lot of us do not believe in gender at all. It does not exist so it cannot be acquired outside, inside, or both. You may as well be trying to explain that some men have superpowers like Spiderman, it's just a fantasy in their heads albeit a mass produced one (can't think of the proper word).

I agree with @akkakk about the precise use of words here. That's why I'm intrigued by their use of "acquired gender" in this Reddit post. I thought their argument was that their gender was "innate". So how have they "acquired" it now? And what does that mean in terms of how trans people are perceiving themselves?

Thank you for that lecture from the gender studies department.

Back in the real world, the whole 'it's leading to harassing of women (you care about women, here's a reason you should accept to let men into women's spaces)' thing is very obviously an activist constructed myth. It's as cynically fabricated as the 'suicide' myth that was pushed for years.

I disagree. Its internalised misogyny. That gender critical movement target their vicious mocking at trans women's appearances & not trans men is about feminine presentation. That they insist cis women who follow suit only do so because of social constructionism/patriarchal expectations & as such have no individual agency is also another 'tell'.

The demeaning of feminine expression AKA femmephobia has a long history rooted in the systemic devaluation of traits, behaviours and aesthetics associated with women and femininity. Historically, patriarchal structures have positioned masculinity as the universal human standard leaving femininity to be viewed as inferior, superficial, or manipulative.

Describing feminine traits, behaviours and aesthetics as purely a 'stereotype' is simply another form of femmephobia. Just because patriarchal & social expectations exist regarding feminine expression doesn't mean that's the only cause of them. In fact gendered traits are considered as both a nature/nurture phenomenon with genes, hormones & evolutionary survival & mating pressures influencing their expression.

Argh, sorry, so you did. Apologies. I was tired and did a "derrr" all of my own...

That was roughly what I did, though not as elegantly. Thanks!

If you realise quickly, you can edit your post to just say "cross post, ignore me" or something, so that at least it limits the number of people reading the original and then going, "derrrr, she's just SAID that!".

ETA: obvs, people can still read the original, but they have to put at least a tiny bit of effort in, which yer typical "derrrrr" poster tends not to do.

Heh, yes, they're pretty good at that. I do think trolls exploit the nighttime laxity though.

Mumsnet moves in a mysterious way, it's clear. I don't try to understand it, though to be fair to them, if they remove one of my posts and I write politely asking why (so i can not do whatever it was again, obviously) someone usually writes back explaining their reasons, and even being prepared to debate the matter a little.