Trans/pride flag in children's stickers

[timeforacoffeebreak]

This was included in a pack of squishmallow stickers... why???
AIBU or is this totally wrong ??

I am just going to focus on this bit.

“So what if they wade into arguments, by your opinion, ‘knowing nothing about it’? Maybe they will come away knowing something about it if they aren’t verbally kicked away.”

I believe, and greenapple can correct me if this is not what they meant, that what is being referred to here is when some posters ‘Wade into arguments’, they do so with the intention of shaming other posters for their supposed hate and transphobia. These may be the posters that when they arrive on a thread make statements about Mumsnet or feminists or particular posters being ‘transphobic’, ‘ignorant’ or ‘hateful’ or ‘anti-trans’ and who scold all posters who disagree.

Are posters supposed to be happy to be directly or indirectly labelled this way?

What I have seen happen numerous times is that those posters doing the labelling receive pushback and are asked to explain their reasons or to show evidence of said ‘hate’ and can never do so. Or do, but it is not considered that way by mods or by general society.

Alternatively as nothing describes, mild requests for evidence is hyperbolically portrayed as ‘attack’. So is robust discussion, or even fucking swearing!

Are you didi actually saying that posters, mostly women, should accept being labelled as transphobic, hateful, bigots, zealots, lacking compassion, ignorant, bullies when this is untrue, just so posters who don’t have the knowledge can see arguments and evidence?

Are you also saying that people seeking information cannot scroll past posts they don’t feel is giving them information? That is condescending, isn’t it? And infantilising?

So in your opinion, posters should accept misinformation being posted about them and general misinformation should not be pointed out because some posters find this so hostile yet, a poster called another transphobic and you don’t seem to have scolded that poster at all.

Do you see a lack of symmetry here?

Getting back to the discussion of whether gender is a belief or not.

Gender is of course a belief. Because not everyone has a ‘gender’. In fact, once explained, I would think the majority don’t have one because it is based on undefinable feelings and people can say they have a ‘gender’ but that ‘gender’ is unique and therefore there are billions of them.

Gender is a personal belief.

Sex is a material fact. There are only two.

A female human is a person with a body formed around the production of large gametes even if those gametes are not able to be produced because of life stage, medical conditions or surgeries. There aren’t people who have both viably formed ovaries and viably formed testes.

Sexual orientation is a sexual attraction to one sex or the other or both or neither even. It is also a fact and can be proven scientifically. Obviously, this can be invasive but it is provable despite leveraging a horribly oppressed group of refugees into the discussion as some kind to rebuttal.

As others have pointed out, those people who are not heterosexual campaigned for equality. They did not demand people and society give them access to laws and policies that gave them privileges. They simply demanded, rightfully, to have equal access to laws and protections that heterosexual people had.

The demands to prioritise sex over gender at all times are demanding privileges to allow a group of people to access laws and protections that never intended to include that group. By this I mean demands for male access to sports, single sex spaces and even initiatives designed to progress women and girls out of the oppression that negative sexist discrimination over millennia has caused.

I think you’re right. I can recall getting a bit shirty on threads years ago (under a different name!) on other topics. I did actually learn from those threads though, even though I wasn’t enjoying being challenged and criticised… Sometimes being told something don’t want to hear in terms you don’t want to hear it in is the way you learn.

What have you done to try and change that?

I have stood up and got involved with the governing body for the sport my son's are involved in. I've been part of the work they're doing to find a fair answer to this. In the UK there is very very few under 16's who compete at any level except under their birth sex. At county and national level, across all sports with a governing body, it was 6 under 16's between Jan 2022 and June 2023. I have only been involved at a youth level, so don't know about 16+.

An excellent summary.

@justteanbiscuits Why you are responding to a question about whether someone thinks it is fair, by asking what the questioner has done about the unfairness? Before finding a solution to the unfairness we first have to agree that it is unfair.

And from all the science I have seen, the "fair answer" starts from recognising that boys and men cannot compete fairly in most girls' or women's sports. They have an unfair physical advantage, regardless of their gender identity and in spite of medication. Even if there are very few (at present) it makes less difference than you might imagine. It only takes one or two examples for girls to recognise they will never stand a fair chance of getting to the top and that their achievements could always be outdone in their own competitions by boys whose technique is less good than their own but who want to compete as girls. It's like allowing doping.

And if you have sons you need to understand that gender dysphoria is not like sexual orientation. It's not just something innate and unchangeable. It can be induced and it's powerfully subject to social influence and pressure - and much harder to get rid of it than to induce it. And if boys who can't succeed in sport as boys realise that they could be much more successful as girls, do you think that helps or adds to their dysphoria? It dangerous to monkey with hormones to allow boys and men to compete as the sex they want to be rather than the sex they are.

There is simply no good reason (that I know of anyway) to allow boys to compete in girls sport, or men in women's.

In 2018 Linda Blade spoke to the president of Athletics Canada about this and his reply to why it was better to include transgirls/women in girls/women's sport despite the obvious lack of safety and fairness was because girls/women wouldn't sue (Gender A Wider Lens Episode 138, 39-41 minutes)

I'm very glad you're active and involved, that presumably means you are knowledgeable as well. So could you explain how a "fair answer" could mean including boys and men in girls and women's sports?

'A fair answer' to this question is that bodies do sports, not identities, and so everyone competes in the category for their body. It's pretty simple, assuming those making the rules think women and girls matter as much as men and boys.

And 6 under 16s competing in the wrong sex category means 6 other under 16s missing out on a place in the category they actually belong to. That's 6 too many in my opinion.

The 'fair' answer is that trans identified males compete in the male category. Why should girls and women have to give way to male athletes and all the well documented physical advantages they possess and compromise their safety, enjoyment and fair competition? I am a rowing coach, myself and many orhers across the sport campaigned for british rowing to change their policy on transwomen which they belatedly did after a lot of mental acrobats and feet dragging. Several young woman from my club have won sports scholarships to US universities, have been selected for GB trials and have qualified for Henley regatta. Why should a single one of those girls have those amazing opportunities and achievements denied because they lost their seat in the boat to man? I have noticed that an argument often presented by TRAs is that because no transwoman has won an Olympic gold that equates to their being no problem with transwomen in women's sports while ignoring the vast majority of sports participation is at grass roots and amateur level. Girls participation in sports is tragically low as it is and this kind of nonsense is hardly encouraging any more to join if they are having to compete against men and share changing facilities with them.

Which is why the recommendation - and what I personally endorse - is having an open category.

The problem is, at a completely amateur level, it's very hard to police the gender of entrants. At this level, how do you check? What needs to happen is to provide an arena where people are comfortable to choose an open category.

@nothingcomestonothing

And 6 under 16s competing in the wrong sex category means 6 other under 16s missing out on a place in the category they actually belong to. That's 6 too many in my opinion.

Which is why I stood up and tried to actually do something about it. Make the change you want to see and all that.

I may have sons, but I have a trans family member and friends too.

But, even though I have sons, I work hard to support the girls in our club and encourage more to join the sport. I put on girls events and work with a charity on how to encourage girls. When the male organisers decided the U10's race last year only needed one set of medals across both genders, I was the one that stood up and took them on to ensure girls had their own set of medals. For an older category more recently, I found out that girls got less prize money than boys, so again stood up and made sure the girls got the same as boys. I made sure that female kit was available, not just expecting to wear boys kit. And I am also the one making sure that sanitary protection was available, and keep it topped up.

Are you saying that entrants need to be ‘policed’? Surely if people entering know that they don’t fit that category they would respect the policy. The lack of ‘policing’ should not mean that female sports categories are not adhered to (not that I am saying you have said that would prevent regulations being made).

Thank you for making sports better for girls. I hope though that does including keeping sex segregation where needed.

I've not come across it, but what I mean is, if someone insists they are female, or insists they are male, there is very little that can be done in grassroots sports.

Which, by having a supportive environment with an open category, I would hope (but obviously couldn't guarantee), that people would self police and enter themselves in the right category. But it's impossible to ensure this would happen.

I would hope that they would to. I guess though if someone insists, if it is a child their birth certificate cannot be changed so it is easily fixed by asking for this up front.

For adults, well I guess sports federations will have to have a process.

We can already see that with park run, already female runners are quickly beginning to express their concerns and their anger. So I suspect that park run will need to change their policy and hopefully remove male people’s records for female categories. Grassroots sports need to maintain female single sex categories just as elite levels do. Having an open category is a great option.

I'm confused then @justteanbiscuits so you don't think TWAW after all?

As for what have I done, well nothing personally because my daughter doesn't have a male on her team and has not been forced, yet, to compete against a county with a male on the opposing team BUT this sport's inclusion policy is TWAW and if it does occur then we may have to face the possibility of having to argue and be branded bigoted by the sports governing body for doing so, how is that fair?

And if TWAW except for in sport then you are acknowledging that sex and gender are different and if you can accept it's unfair in sport for females to be displaced it's hard to understand any logical argument why women should be made unsafe by the same males in single sex spaces.

I don't have daughters at all. And we haven't had the situation arrise in any of the races I've been involved with. But I felt it's better to be prepared then wait till the issue is urgent and further upset happen. As I said above, be the change you want to see.

I am, mainly, TWAW. But I am also a complex human who doesn't see things in black and white. Life is nuanced. I don't believe trans women are a danger. I believe dangerous men are a danger and, sometimes, they will use what ever methods are in front of them to rape and abuse. I believe the trans women who have raped and abused women would have done so whether they were calling themselves women or not. I believe in providing adequate counselling and psychological support for people questioning their gender. I believe that there are many true trans people, but with such little support available, too many are believing themselves to be trans because they feel so different to their peers. I think there is a middle ground that can be found that supports trans women as women, but that the initial help is required. I don't think making trans women have the full surgery is necessary (there are many reasons some people may not have extensive surgery). The problem is the extremes on both sides are so awful that no sensible discussion can be had.

I don't believe trans women are a danger. I believe dangerous men are a danger and, sometimes, they will use what ever methods are in front of them to rape and abuse.

How can women identify who are the non dangerous transwomen are from the predators when they have to share spaces with them?

“Life is nuanced. I don't believe trans women are a danger. I believe dangerous men are a danger and, sometimes, they will use what ever methods are in front of them to rape and abuse. I believe the trans women who have raped and abused women would have done so whether they were calling themselves women or not.”

So, have you got any evidence at all that males who have transitioned in any way have a lower risk of committing sex offences than any other male person in the UK?

And can you please give us a number of women and girls you feel are acceptable collateral to be harmed and abused before you, personally, believe that laws, guidance and policies can be tightened to exclude all male people from female single sex spaces?

Because so far, all I have seen is some posters handing out assurances that some males should be considered safer than others and that women pointing out that this is not based on evidence and in fact seems to be based on pure faith are ‘extreme’.

Please provide the evidence and provide a number of women and girls you are prepared to consider acceptable collateral.

@justteanbiscuits why do you believe that TWAW rather than men who choose to mimic women?

The problem is the extremes on bothsides are so awful that no sensible discussion can be had.

As alluded to up thread the official policy of TRAs was 'no debate' which was hardly a productive stance for sensible discussion

You can feel empathy, sympathy, pity towards a transwoman without having to believe they are a woman. The two things are entirely separate. No man can become a woman, and no woman can become a man. Thinking/believing/saying that is OK, both morally and legally. I’m sure you can remain a trans ally without actually believing TWAW/TMAM.

Yes. Exactly.

We can sympathise and empathise without repeating mindless mantras that you have to believe in pseudo scientific theories to base on any believable foundation. And to twist and manipulate language as well as science to make those premises fit which is where queer theory comes into it.

However, if you repeat empty assurances without providing one skerrick of evidence that is based on fact, I don’t believe someone should then start accusing feminists of being ‘extreme’ when they are the ones ready to provide evidence or are providing evidence.

That just shows someone is very happy for women and children to be harmed until they are finally unable to ducking ignore the truth. We have watched this happen time and time again already. How many more women and girls have to harmed while some people so happily sit there stating ‘it is both sides who are so extreme’?

Of course, only one poster in the past ever answered this and when you even ask if people agree with that poster’s answer, posters ignore the question.

But those reading understand that the question is being ignored because it requires courage to own that your opinion will allow additional women and girls to be harmed that should have been safer.

Be the change you want to see

Why it is the responsibility of young girls in sport to potentially make themselves unpopular with their coaches and the sports governing bodies or worse to be branded bigoted because their sports governing body say that males are female if they say so?

Why can't the males just stay out of our children's spaces?

If I speak up I don't know what the response will be, I'm not prepared to risk my daughter's sporting opportunities to do that. Nor are any of the other mothers who have started expressing outrage by what's happening in other areas of our children's sport.

If and when the issue arises then we may have to do something, until then I'm not putting my daughter's opportunities at risk.

And I feel sorry for males who believe they are born in the wrong bodies but they should not be the cross for females to bear. They need psychological support to understand that feeling like a female doesn't mean you are one. The fact that they have been led to believe that women must move over for them makes the draw back so much worse than it should be. When the time comes that women's rights take the forefront those poor males have been sold a lie. Be the change you want to see and stop lying to them and stop enabling them to put women and girls at risk because by letting some males in you let every male in and women are being harmed no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears or turn a blind eye to the facts.

I don't believe trans women are a danger.

Many years ago, a transwoman friend told me that there were two kinds of people who get to medically transition - highly articulate educated middle class professionals, and people outside of society. I knew a few of the first kind.

I sympathised with my friends' wish to be included with women and (as far as possible) seen as women and treated as women, but I never saw how that could really work in practice. Even then women had to defend women-only spaces against aggressive transvestites as well as against other men who felt unfairly excluded. But at the time there was political sympathy for women's need to separate and transwomen had little influence. "Third spaces" and "open categories" might have been an answer but all those years ago there weren't the resources - it was hard enough to get resources just for women, and transwomen didn't have the force of numbers that women had.

In the years since then trans rights campaigners wisely hitched their waggon onto the successful organisations for gay rights, and it has become a political and ideological imperative that TWAW and that "third spaces" or "open categories" are not good enough. Even in some rape crisis centres "inclusion" does not just mean a separate service for transwomen, it means transwomen can choose to be wherever they feel most comfortable at whatever cost to women who are the main clients.

And then when I read about Isla Bryson I understood some of what my friend meant all those years ago by the second kind of transwoman. But now we are told that Isla Bryson is just a "rapist" and not a true transwoman at all, because transwomen are not a danger. The logic is circular and the circle is closed.

I don't believe trans women are a danger.

So what are Katie Dolatowski, Barbie Khardashian and Isla Bryson then? To name but a few ...

They say they're trans, so shouldn't we believe them? Wouldn't anything but unqualified belief be bigoted transphobia? That is certainly my understanding.

As they are most certainly a danger and I can't imagine you arguing otherwise, what is this special criteria you are using to identify the 'Tru trans' and how can we apply that before rather than after the fact of them abusing women?

Because I am at a TOTAL loss on this point, I don't mind admitting.