Gender Self Identification debate continued

[PoochSmooch]

Continuation of the thread from here

It might be crickedneckouch, but usually people have very strong opinions about this and it has never stopped them voicing it in the past.

I have also seen dozens of women, over the last few months, saying they hadn't realised the implications and are glad that they are now better informed.

Additionally MSM this have all written articles questioning this new law. The below the line comments are just as critical as the women on here. So I believe the tide is turning.

Although I suspect, not for you?

I have tried to comment on that Daily Mail link and posted my comment at lunch time today. It still hasn't been updated. How long do comments normally take to show up? There has been so much good sense talked on this thread that I feel like commenting on all these articles and sharing them on social media as a way of opening Debate and educating people as I don't feel the media is drawing people's attention to any of the issues.

That might just be that those who disagree with you are no longer responding, because of the tone of the thread and the general attitudes displayed.

Considering that many of us spoke up against genderism back when we feminists were in the minority, if what you state is true, that just proves that transwacktivists are a bunch of cowards.

(Which I know they are, anyway - see "Terf". Attacking women instead of violent males is the action of a coward)

crickedneck, I wonder if you could expand a bit on what you feel is so objectionable about the tone of this thread? That would be really helpful. I suppose it's possible that there is a vast army of people out there who are simultaneously very concerned about trans issues, but who can't bring themselves to post about it because words on a screen are both too threatening and too pointless, but it seems a bit unlikely to me. Given how many pixels AIBU can expend on bad parking, hateful MILs and poor wedding etiquette, it would be a first.

I don't understand a proposal that would seem to allow Gary Lineker to declare that he's a woman, fill in a form, live his life exactly the same as before and the BBC to declare the gender pay gap is sorted. Because Gary Lineker is now a woman, and the only commitment required from him is a bit of paper. Anyone saying 'hang on, that doesn't count, Gary isn't really a woman' would be shouted down as bigots?

Is there something I've missed?

The tone of this thread has reflected how many posters feel: a sense of anger, frustration and disbelief that this is happening.

noble you have missed nothing. It really is that cretinous.

Joining this late but just shocked that we've let this go on so long and be pushed to this point. Choosing our own sex? Changing birth certificates?! Tell me this madness won't actually happen!!!

Considering that many of us spoke up against genderism back when we feminists were in the minority, if what you state is true, that just proves that transwacktivists are a bunch of cowards.

It's not cowardice to not want to engage in a debate in an echo chamber. As I said on the previous board, I'm of an opposing opinion to this thread and I'm happy to speak about it rationally in DMs. People (on both sides) seem to think the anonymity of the internet and being able to blend into a board means it's fine to spout off cruel things and/or completely ignore statements made by each other.

Plus, when there's only one opposing opinion and twenty agreeing, it's hard to get a word in edgeways before everybody's agreeing with themselves or picking down little things you said. If I'm a coward for wanting a reasoned debate rather than an all out assault from all sides, so be it.

How many message do you think we need to make this a trending topic/ make the mainstream media notice? I feel powerless because we're in a bubble of agreement here but my real life friends and family think I'm obsessed and mad. People honestly don't realise what's happening.

Marking my place.

I have tried to comment on that Daily Mail link and posted my comment at lunch time today. It still hasn't been updated

It has been at 17 comments since I first saw it this morning.

It's not cowardice to not want to engage in a debate in an echo chamber

Unless that echo chamber repeats, ad nauseam, your own opinion.

I am sure you would be quite happy to shout down a feminist if it were twenty genderists against a feminist.

That's what I have observed happening in other forums, over and over.

And if you are so keen on "reasoned debate" then perhaps ask yourself why you ally with people who threaten to rape and murder feminists.

How many message do you think we need to make this a trending topic/ make the mainstream media notice?

I think mumsnet intentionally prevents it from being a trending topic on here, so no chance.

Mainstream media do notice. Germany's most famous feminist magazine has uttered some careful questions as to why there are no lesbians anymore, only a bunch of newly transitioned transmen ... I do think they are waking up.

Majora

The implication seems to be that the debate here has been unreasonable. I haven't felt that.

I'm interested in your reasons for supporting this particular legislation. Specifically the idea that anyone, at any time can choose to identify as whichever gender they want. I'd like to hear your opinion on how you would safeguard vulnerable women from harm, by men, if this become law.

I'd rather discuss on the thread, but if you'd like to DM, ok.

Majora do you think it is fair for Ian Huntley to be able to move to a women's prison?

Would you be happy with your daughter locked up with him?

majora, it's really really hard to engage with your post because you've couched it in such a way as to make all options look bad.

I can't pick up on an individual point in your post because that's "picking at it". I'm hesitating to even post this because a couple of other posters have responded to you and that looks like a pile on. You've used the word "rational" in a way that suggests the debate here is not rational, and the phrase "echo chambers" suggests that posters here have just been brainwashed into a certain way of thinking - and it's hard to respond to that in a measured way because it's pretty rude.

But as with my request to a previous poster if you could highlight what has been posted here that is objectionable, that would be really helpful. I don't want to DM because I'm on a discussion board, and I want to discuss this in public.

Just out of interest, why do you refer to yourselves as feminist, and people who support self-ID and trans people as 'genderists'? Feminism is not limited to the second-wave radical feminism that many of you seem to ascribe to, third and fourth wave feminists are still feminists.

Also, just as a petty note 'trans' is not a noun. It's an adjective. You can't be 'a trans', you're a trans person, trans woman, trans man.

Personally, I welcome these legislative changes and am not anywhere near as panicked as some of you about the potential for misuse of this potential law, although if I turn out to be wrong I'll be right their campaigning for better safeguards for women.

The way I look at it, and forgive me if I am over-simplifying is:

Legislation will protect the FEELINGS of those who want to be women by allowing them to self-declare, but not ACTUAL women who are more physically vulnerable.

Is that the gist of it?

So stopping a big hairy man with a big hairy cock from coming into the women's toilet will upset him if he has come over a bit girly that day. But no one cares if a big hairy man with a big hairy cock is in a confined space with smaller, more vulnerable women who don't want him there, however upset they are.

Could someone who agrees with the proposal please engage with the example of Gary Lineker declaring he's a woman and solving the BBC gender pay gap with further commitment to womanhood required from Gary.

In that scenario - is Gary a woman?
If yes, then has the gender pay gap really been solved? And if not, then why not?
If Gary isn't a woman, then doesn't that mean you don't really agree with the proposal and self-identification isn't enough on its own?

Loopsdefruit, though I don't personally use the term genderist, I think it helps to clarify that there are different schools of thought about this. I'm not "panicked", as it goes - I have legitimate concerns.

I agree that some people on this thread have incorrectly used the word "trans" as a noun, and that is not ideal. However, not everyone has a nuanced grip on the terms we now "ought" to use - given that prior to about 2014, this was not a topic of mainstream discussion, and that it changes daily, it is not always easy to get correct. For example, when I first started discussing this online the correct terminology was trans*. But no-one uses that now. That's part of the reason that threads like this are useful - so that people understand what is going on and what the terms of the debate are.

noble I can try, although I don't know what the current BBC issue is (on holiday, not keeping up with news)

Hamlet See, the way I see it, if someone wants to come in the toilet and use the toilet, as long as I don't personally have to look at their genitals while they use the toilet I couldn't care less if they have a vagina or a penis (or how big and hairy it is).

If someone wishes to come into the toilet to commit a crime, there is already nothing actually stopping them. A criminal man can already walk into the ladies loos, attack someone, and then either hang around to be arrested or leave. The crime is not them being in a lavatory not meant for them, it is assault. If someone identifying as a woman goes into a women's bathroom and assaults someone, the crime is still assault. They don't get a 'free pass' just because they ID as female?

But many people do care and want privacy and a genuine woman / female only space? Why should a man's wish to be in there trump my wish to be in an all-female space?

pooch yeh that's fine! It was more just a thing that was bugging me than an actual problem I have with anyone else on the thread. Just kinda like when people say 'a Jew' or 'a Black' or 'a Gay' (although there's another interesting linguistic thing that 'a lesbian' is ok, which yeh is a whole other debate so not wanting to derail)

What's wrong with saying "a Jew"? How is that different from saying "a Muslim/Christian/Hindu"?