AIBU to think women should not be banned from Social media for asking the question - Thread 2

[Thewithesarehere]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:
“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

Hi Mole. Thanks for those screenshots. So awful.

And there are so very many men sending them. All of them advocating for laws to give them access to vulnerable women.

Just leaving this here before I go to bed. We already know that when the general population know the facts, the don't buy the bullshit either.

That's why it's all been done be infiltration and stealth.
Why on places like reddit the mods of female topics are now males who police our words. Erasing 64000 gender critical voices in one swoop.

And why they absolutely despise mumsnet.
Because they can't control us.

YANBU .

I think a lot of us have been bought up to believe that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes or 'facts' anymore. No right no wrong, no yes or no, and no male no female is part of that. It feels like everything is open to debate and interpretation so much so that often my head feels like it is spinning.

All now rests on how a person relates to something as to whether it is true or not. That is how a man with a penis can be a woman, because he feels it is so. The modern idea of truth lies in his relation to the statement.

But there is power in speaking the truth the old fashioned way. Because there are absolutes, there are facts that ground us and let us know where we stand in the world.

I am a woman. Fact.

.. everything is relative and that there are no absolutes or 'facts' anymore. No right no wrong, no yes or no, and no male no female is part of that. It feels like everything is open to debate and interpretation..

Eeeemac this is exactly the soft ground they use to expand grey areas to everything and exactly how they are able to ride fairly unchallenged on the idea that anybody who isn't open to debate is a bigot. People who like to think themselves intelligent AND empathic - aka university educated Left - are extremely vulnerable as a result. Critical thinking actually comes second to "seeing the other side" which has the incredible result of people who should know better, based on the fact they've been educated, being vulnerable to manipulation. And that is in turn exacerbated by the belief they're always right.

What I find more interesting and disturbing in equal measure is just how able they are to empathise with the male underdog, because he's viewed as vulnerable, while obliterating the actual underdogs ie women who are in very real danger (in prisons locked up with males).

What is happening in the educational system to result in the relegation of critical thinking and material reality?

molesmokes

Those were red flag territory. How do those people keep their jobs?

Winesalot - I hope that if they are reported that their employers see the red flags too - but who knows? These days it might mean a promotion!

Eeeemac this is exactly the soft ground they use to expand grey areas to everything and exactly how they are able to ride fairly unchallenged on the idea that anybody who isn't open to debate is a bigot. People who like to think themselves intelligent AND empathic - aka university educated Left - are extremely vulnerable as a result.

I have dipped my toe in to some twitter conversations from people who say they are educated who have told me to 'educate myself' on the fact that thinking in terms of two biological sexes XX/ XY is out of date and (as someone stated on the first thread) reductive.

The problem is, and I've read into the 100 genders etc, that i can't see any clear evidence that we should classify ourselves on anything other than biological terms.

I am genuinely trying not to be bigoted in my views on this but to me it's like asking me to believe that the earth is flat to accept a definition of woman that goes beyond XX when I'm not being told what the new definition is.

If it's not chromosomes and it's not feelings then what is it`?

I just can't, on an intellectual level, work out what they are talking about and why so many intelligent people believe what they are saying is true.

@Impatiens

Still waiting for any of those 18 people (and the now 0.8 of a person additionally) to explain why they think women should be banned from social media for asking this question..

Because we are not allowed to post anything that someone else might find offensive or discriminatory.

I am not saying that Facebook or Twitter are correct to take that position, but it answers your question - dismissing trans rights (by saying someone who self-identifies as a woman is not necessarily a woman) could be seen as a breach of the terms and conditions, and therefore people who post those views should legitimately be banned.

To be absolutely clear, it's not just any old individual on Twitter who are saying there's no such thing as biological sex.
It's the Diversity Trust, among others, written by the person who's involved in writing NHS guidance. The intention is to replace references to 'sex' with 'legal sex' or 'gender', both of which can be changed on paper.

This is their submission to the GRA enquiry.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16958/pdf/

A sample: "
"The UK has, since at least the 1930s, accepted that the sex assigned at birth is not always correct, and can be changed on medical advice. We do not test a baby’s chromosomes at birth, and even if we did this is not always a clear indication of the sex of the individual. Intersex people exist, and while their numbers are small, they are similar in proportion of the population to the numbers of trans people.

The sex recorded on a birth certificate is therefore a legal sex, not a biological sex. This can be changed, as the GRA makes clear. Appeals to “biological sex” and dictionary definitions of “woman” cannot challenge this.

Where the Equality Act makes reference to Sex as a Protected Characteristic, it should therefore be referring to legal sex, and not to any other proposed definition of what sex a person is."

So the point is Deacon that under proposed self ID (and in fact what a lot of organisations are doing already in breach of the Equality Act) is treating the legal sex as whatever a person says it is? On that basis it doesn't even need to be a feeling does it? It's self determined?

Does that work both ways can I identify as a man in the workplace and demand a higher salary on a par with the men who didn't take time off/ a career break to have babies?

Yes, essentially in law, and general policy, as we are seeing already in eg m&s changing rooms, there will be no way of differentiating between sexes, as it is whatever anyone says they identify as (reliant on people being honest about their true gender identity, as it can't be defined or verified). Luckily we know people never lie to gain anything to their advantage.

Your gran will not legally be allowed to request a female providing feminine care, your sister will be unable to request a female examiner or smear test provider, there are males welcomed into Girl Guide sleepovers.

If you think it won't get that far, suggest a space that you think is still female-only.

And of course there's no such thing as same-sex attraction. At least that will be the end of homophobia, because homosexuals don't exist, and same-sex attraction is seen as a bigoted genital fetish.

*intimate care, not feminine care!

If it's not chromosomes

It isn’t ‘just’ chromosomes though. Because they are people with differences in sex development with chromosomes that are different to xx.

If you read more from the scientists, being female is described as having a body that is designed to have the potential to produce large gametes, whether it does produce them or not.

It also encompasses female reproductive systems and genitals and hormones etc.

Hence why activists jump on the sex is a spectrum wagon. However, sex is binary because to reproduce, it requires a large gamete (female) and a small one (male). No other combinations are possible for reproduction and no other sexes have been named.

That is often what they mean by women are not just XX and out of date. On one hand they are right, and anyone with a DSD is either male or female but chromosomes will vary.

On the other hand, they want sex to be defined as a spectrum (the activists) so they can destabilize the definitions of female / male so they can say people are ‘female’ because they have artificial hormones (ie cross sex hormones) and surgery to construct genitals of the opposite sex. While conveniently missing the point that their cells are coded forever to be the sex they were born. If they stopped the medication their bodies would try to produce their own hormones if the organs were still intact and viable.

Activists politicize other people’s medical conditions to further their need to destabilize language and science. The ‘spectrum’ they call the sex spectrum is actually a spectrum of body differences within each sex classification. This has also always been true.

Sex itself is not a spectrum and if your body is male, it will always be so until you can magically rebuild yourself from cell level up.

Activists politicize other people’s medical conditions to further their need to destabilize language and science. The ‘spectrum’ they call the sex spectrum is actually a spectrum of body differences within each sex classification.

Despite many intersex organisations and individuals asking not to be used in this way, these activists continue to do it.

@Winesalot

If it's not chromosomes

It isn’t ‘just’ chromosomes though. Because they are people with differences in sex development with chromosomes that are different to xx.

If you read more from the scientists, being female is described as having a body that is designed to have the potential to produce large gametes, whether it does produce them or not.

It also encompasses female reproductive systems and genitals and hormones etc.

Hence why activists jump on the sex is a spectrum wagon. However, sex is binary because to reproduce, it requires a large gamete (female) and a small one (male). No other combinations are possible for reproduction and no other sexes have been named.

That is often what they mean by women are not just XX and out of date. On one hand they are right, and anyone with a DSD is either male or female but chromosomes will vary.

On the other hand, they want sex to be defined as a spectrum (the activists) so they can destabilize the definitions of female / male so they can say people are ‘female’ because they have artificial hormones (ie cross sex hormones) and surgery to construct genitals of the opposite sex. While conveniently missing the point that their cells are coded forever to be the sex they were born. If they stopped the medication their bodies would try to produce their own hormones if the organs were still intact and viable.

Activists politicize other people’s medical conditions to further their need to destabilize language and science. The ‘spectrum’ they call the sex spectrum is actually a spectrum of body differences within each sex classification. This has also always been true.

Sex itself is not a spectrum and if your body is male, it will always be so until you can magically rebuild yourself from cell level up.

Thank you for explaining this, really helpful.

So are you effectively saying that the TRAs are using the fact that there are some people with chromosome abnormalities, I assume intersex but if I'm wrong please tell me, to say that biology should not ever be a determining factor?

What do intersex people make of this, isn't it appropriating a disability for the gain of an ideology.

What benefit is there in denying the lived biological reality of the human race?

Sorry for all the (potentially stupid) questions, but the impact of this is huge and I want to ensure I understand it correctly.

life

People with dsds ( I believe that's now the preferred term fir intersex ) have repeatedly asked to be left out of it.

The phrase assigned at birth is appropriated from what used ti happen to babies with dsds where they were given barbaric surgeries to make things cosmetically more realistic.

Completely different to trans

Deacon so what you are saying is that a persons feeling of being a different sex (which is open to abuse because is no more than a feeling) is deemed more important than an elderly persons desire to receive intimate care from a person of the same sex?

Wow.

What does dsds stand for?

Differences in sex development.

Maybe the answer is to remove gender from the equation altogether.

You could have facilities for “People with Penises” and “People without Penises”.

There! Problem solved!

Not really. Anyone who no longer has a penis through accident or cancer, where would they go?

Still men

People are up in arms that social media is cracking down on hate speech

It isn't doing that though. It's targeting women who don't believe in gender identity ideology while leaving things like paedophilia and misogyny, death and rape threats ( to the same women!) to stand. How is Helen's question "hate speech?"

Quaagers please please explain why this discussion could be construed as hate speech?

As a general aside, I think what pisses many of us off is that whilst men can get kicked off SM for daring to debate this and support safeguarding and boundaries, it's generally just women who get the death and rape threats and police a-knocking. Occasionally they will visit the chaps too (Harry the Owl). But yeah, when my concerns to keep everyone safe are met with an offer to rape me to death then the gloves are off.

Molesmokes those screenshots, Jesus Christ. How is that allowed to stand by comparison?