to disagree with gender ideology/pronouns

[changednameforthiss]

Genuinely don't understand why this is a controversial statement, but somehow we're so far removed from truth and reality, and saying there are no more than 2 genders is enough to get you fired from your job and cancelled forever.

I believe in man and woman as science dictates, and that's it. Why is that hateful? I am not hating PEOPLE for stating this, because I simultaneously believe in the idea that any adult should 100% have the ability and right to freely express themselves in ways that feel congruent with their inner. I also believe people can medically transition to appear as a woman/male if they deal with actual gender dysphoria i.e. genuinely loathe of the sex they were born it; and I believe people have the right to perceive themselves as a woman/man . However, that does not make you the opposite sex. This is a perception, i.e. it is subjective...

So if someone does not want to refer to someone as their preferred pronouns, it is rude at best, but it's certainly not criminal as many people try to make it now. Personally, I will call you by your preferred pronouns because I think it's just good manners, but I honestly don't think it's the truth and I don't think anyone is what their biology (thus hormones) would reject. But we are allowing this to happen and the topic of gender ideology is impacting and in some cases damaging our children who have to deal with adult topics they are wayyyyyy too young to comprehend, as well as women's safety by opening doors for biological men into women's spaces that should not be opened. This is a big problem!

Why is this so controversial? Can we not respect everyone and their right to self-expression and femininity/masculinity across sexes without changing our vocabulary to affirm people's self-perceptions as well as rejecting biology?

If you think I'm hateful, I beg of you please explain why because I'm not getting this and it's driving me insane.

Your parts dont really matter when youre just going about your day most of the time anyway. itd matter with a partner.

They very definitely matter when I'm in vulnerable spaces like wards, cells, and changing rooms.

You can google the stats on trans women and violence; how much they receive, compared to women; how much they commit, compared to the male and female prison population; how much more risk having a "male part" brings to women in those spaces.

This isn't just a "be kind" thing. It's about the biological realities, the historical facts, and the legal distinctions that means people with penises (again, 'men') don't just get to have everything they want because society is so eager and willing to tell women to shut up and give up.

No one is saying trans people shouldn't exist. But TRAs have spent years blurring the language and muddying the waters with comparisons to previous civil rights movements and talk about "the right side of history". We all want to be good people, and avoid the bigotry and ignorance previous generations might have shown. TRAs have done a brilliant job at using all of these good intentions to play on our knowledge gaps and push the idea that their movement is one of progress and openness.

It's not. Looking into the history of this particular gender movement. It's about increased sexual access to children and vulnerable women (this isn't comparable to previous homophobic fears about gay men - it's pretty black and white in the writings of M. Foucault). It's about normalising and publicising kinks. It's about gaining power over women in fields that women have fought really hard to be seen, respected, and protected in.

Trans people have always existed, and they should always continue to exist. But I refuse to allow a perverted men's rights movement tell my friends and my children that we're murderous bigots for not letting the worst of them behave however they want.

92% of transwomen retain their penis and testicles. And I don't care why they retain them, the fact is, they do. And they have no place being in womens safe single sex spaces.

Lesbians are women.
Transmen are women.
That, is why it's irrelevant to bring it up. Neither lesbians nor transmen are a threat to women, as they are female just as us.

Men in dresses are fine. No issue with that whatsoever. A man in a dress going about his day is totally fine. What’s not fine is if he says he’s a woman and accesses women’s spaces, sports, awards etc and actual women are deemed bigots if they don’t roll over and accept this.

If men who say they are women feel at risk in men’s toilets, that’s a them problem. It’s not for women to give up their same sex protections to accommodate them.

I already posted a link above. And others posted links too.

I don't think I need to see it and no number of suggestions that I'm being brainwashed are going to alter what I think.

To those disagreeing, which you're fully entitled to; I'm curious, what do you think about these things being raised with young kids in school or at home?

I’m certainly not “apologising” for her statement. I think it was ill advised
politically, and she might have realised that if she had a cooler head.

but I wouldn’t want to apologise for it. Why would I, when It’s you who have chosen to strip it of its context and twist its meaning to turn it into something it’s not.

This is quite a good thread of issues that have arisen since 2018 when the thread started.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

I'm not sure there are statistics that have been produced on this but the reporting of such incidents is much more frequent than previously. I assume you know that a woman was raped by a man who identified as a woman on a NHS single sex ward and was told that it could never have happened because there was no woman on the ward?

This would not have happened before the NHS was told to prioritise the feelings of a man who identifies as a man over women's safety and dignity.

A couple of weeks ago a man was arrested in Durham for sexually assault in the women's loos and, on arrest, he said he has the right to be there because he identifies as a woman.

Males have been emboldened by the removal of safeguarding of women's single sex spaces. As being a trans woman is based on a man's internal feelings of self it is not possible to differentiate between any of these men.

Dennis Noel Kavanagh talks about the proposed conversion therapy bill and how the current draft creates reverse burdens of proof which are legally undesirable.

We see similar patterns within the whole argument for trans people and how it's skewed against women, despite the very reasons that single sex facilities were set up in the first place and why we still aid agencies in the third world see them as essential to reducing VAGW (whilst these same agencies bizarrely advocate that TWAW at the same time).

We see within the narrative of transphobia how women have to prove that they aren't transphobic and are at risk rather than the requirements of trans people to demonstrate that they are the most oppressed and vulnerable in society whilst they've got great whacking lobby groups and politicians backing them without a coherent definition of 'what a woman is' which is legally both unworkable.

I kinda get peeved at this, when we DO know that the rate of trans identifying sex offenders is so high and disproportionate to the general population.

Why?

How do women tell the difference between 'good trans' and 'bad trans' and just plain old boring male. And where is the evidence that trans women are more at risk in mens toilets?

Throw in the argument about why third spaces would solve the issue for women but are totally unacceptable for transwomen.

You end up with the problem that the thing transwomen want is the women in the toilets and changing rooms for validation purposes not for safety.

Don't forget that culture of telling women that if they object they are transphobic not just trying to protect themselves.

This isn't ok.

That, is why it's irrelevant to bring it up. Neither lesbians nor transmen are a threat to women, as they are female just as us.
Yes... and it's pretty homophobic to imply lesbians should be brought up in that context. wtf.

Me too.

The reason why fears that boys are more at risk from gay men are prejudiced is that there is no evidence that gay men are more likely to be sex offenders than other men.

There is a shit load of evidence as to why women are more at risk from men than they are from women. That's why its not prejudice to want to keep men, however they identify, out of women's spaces.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that a man, by saying he is a woman, becomes less of a danger than other men.

There is also no evidence that sexual predatory or opportunistic men are kindly choosing not to take advantage of this massive safeguarding loophole. There are already many cases where they have.

Then don't read it! Scroll past the thread. Quite simple.

It wasn’t in a statement, it was in a begging letter to the BBC asking them to silence lesbians who were speaking about being sexually assaulted or pressurised into sex by men who ID’d as trans.

It is a false equivalence though.

Homosexual male people were wrongfully discriminated against based on no statistical evidence at all. This has, rightfully, been prevented with law. Because it was statistically inaccurate. Either way, there is absolutely NO evidence either that those male people are LESS of a risk of committing sex crime than other male people.

When you cut through all the posts on this thread declaring there is no issue except hateful discrimination, the fact remains that the comparator should be and only should be 'does one group of male people have a lower risk profile compared to ALL other male people in the UK'?

The answer for gay male people is 'no' and it was likely always no.

If you are arguing that any male person over about 8 should be included in any single sex female space, you need to provide evidence that the group of male people you are advocating for have not just a lower risk of committing sex crime than all other male people in the UK. You also need to provide evidence that they commit sex crime at the same or lower rate than all female people in the UK.

Leveraging in homosexual male people in this way, could be considered homophobic because it is not an honest comparator and it is used, even if not intentionally, to shame a person from making a point about why there should be no male people allowed into any female single sex space.

it wasn’t a statement

not sure why you think a statement can’t be made in a letter 💁🏼‍♀️.
(Or what value that particular contribution has to this debate?)

It wasn’t a statement, but more interestingly, what do you think about the letter as a whole and Nancy trying to silence lesbians talking about sexual abuse from males?

Transactivists: "can we conveniently forget that flashing is an actual crime and there might be an issue with penises in changing rooms as a result when no one can tell if it's someone is true trans, bad trans or just make cos if a woman dares to challenge she might be cast into hell, tarred and feathered as transphobic and might actually lose her job for doing so?"

I'm so past this.

You need to do better than just say that transwomen in changing rooms are 'just minding their own business'. It's missing the point and the dignity and privacy of women.

Why is are the demands of transwomen to validation more important than the privacy and dignity and safety of women?

I'm curious. What is it about transwomen that makes their needs more important?

I understand why lots of MNers find these threads dispiriting and annoying. It's the same two sides saying the same two things over and over again.
TRAs: BIGOTS should just BE NICE
GCs: TRAs should ATTEND REALITY

(I'm trying to be fair here, but the stats are mounting and mounting and it's hard to argue anything other than cult ideology is on the TRAs' side.)

It can seem boring and repetitive, but I'm so grateful to people who do keep discussing because maybe even one woman will be peaked on here, like I was a few years ago, and suddenly realise what a transwoman is (not a woman who presents as a man), what the facts are about male violence, and what risks girls and women are put in under the Be Nice regime.

Thank you, both sides, for continuing to discuss this.

As above I am baffled as to why you think someone can’t make a statement in a letter.

and I do not accept your characterisation that Nancy was “ trying to silence lesbians talking about sexual abuse from males”

Unless Ive hopelessly lost track of the various conversations on this thread, I think my link to a bbc article upthread provides the context for the Nancy Kelley/stonewall homophobia issue.

anyone who doesn’t think men including those who say they are women in female spaces is a problem should read the Angiolini report. Which states that indecent exposure particularly involving masturbation is a red flag for more serious offending. There have been numerous reports of men who say they are women exposing genitals and masturbating in women’s toilets. Not all TW of course. But enough of a risk that we must keep all men including those who say they are women out of women’s spaces and not facilitate their attendance in areas where exposure of their genitals is more likely

whispers and softly claps

Literally 👏no one 👏is 👏 trying 👏 to 👏 force 👏 them 👏 into 👏 a 👏 miserable 👏 existence.

Dear lord.

Just last week a bloke was convicted for pretending to be a transwoman and going into women's toilets to try to film women and girls on the toilet. When the police searched his hard drive they also found he had lots of images of child sex abuse.

Predatory men will use any loopholes they can find to access women and girls.

Surely that's something we can all agree on.

So why was she asking the BBC not to publish the article, if she wasn’t trying to silence lesbians?