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.

Only read the first and last page of the thread but -

If someone wants to pretend that they're a member of the opposite sex, thats fine, up to them.
If they want me to pretend that they're a member of the opposite sex - No, because I wont be coerced to lie.

Also, Stonewall were absolutely homophobic when Kelley likened lesbians who refuse to indulge trans identified males with antisemites.
They have completely refuted concept of same sex attraction in favour of coercing homosexuals to engage in intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex in order to affirm their "gender identity" and they can fuck off.

You clearly have absolutely zero insight into the lived experience of being trans, so yes this is a very fair assumption.

Can we agree that transwomen have zero insight into the lived experience of being female? And that female voices have a right to be heard as well?

And if we agree on that, then my voice is saying I want single sex sports and services. I want my sex to have sex specific healthcare.
I want to have protections and rights based on my sex so I am not discriminated against or treated differently because of my sex and in some cases have additional rights because I am female to ensure I can fully participate in society and reach an equal outcome.

One of these is the right to use public facilities such as changing rooms without being flashed by a penis haver or having to get undressed in the presence of a penis haver.

Not much to ask, imo. Basic human right to dignity and respect.

So.what's.wrong.with.third.spaces?

Why is it polite to dismiss womens concerns about language implications, privacy and dignity, homophobic and safeguarding?

We know that positive affirmation of children is not a neutral act. We know that social transition of children from a very early age before they are capable of consenting is not a neutral act.

Honestly. Start addressing the concerns.

As a rule GC women do care about trans-people. They care about the harms to them. They care that they don't want to be discriminated against. They understand they have real issues but simply think they are not the same as women's and therefore shouldn't be lumped together as either women's problems to solve or at the expense of women.

The point being that the solution to respect and protect transwomen AND women isn't to blindly just use pronouns under the threat of being called bigoted or making trans people not exist.

Sigh.

I have set out my (actually slightly GC in some areas) views loads of times on threads about trans people. For my trouble I have been called a TRA/MRA supporter, a useful idiot, a handmaiden. Even been accused of being a man. That's why I don't want to engage much in these discussions.

ETA: and the latest incarnation: hateful towards women and girls.

Hi Tandora, I don't need to agree with any trans person about their beliefs, just as I wouldn't agree with any woman or man about their beliefs. Do only immigrants get to speak on immigration? Do only children get to speak on children?

You are here speaking for trans issues, yet in the same breath stating one should speak to a trans person to understand their experience. Doesn't make sense to me at all. I am willing to listen to logical arguments, just Iike someone on this thread said risks involved with transitioning is a reason for choosing not to transition, which opened my mind. But I'm not seeing your point.

That's horrifying!

A man is 2½ times more likely to be a sex offender if he says he's trans

"Yawn" isn't helpful from either side in any argument.

@IClaudine Please can you say just a little bit about the "thin veneer of hatred towards all trans women" on MN? I see it said a lot by people support trans rights on here, but besides people disagreeing with the issues of penis-havers being in women's spaces being accused of transphobia and that everyone is "wishing all trans people suffer a miserable existence", I haven't seen it.

This sounds goady but I really want to know if things have been deleted that means I have a biased view of MN. Happy to keep talking in good faith.

Stop being transphobic by being horrified at actual data.

You bigot.

Women have no reason to be concerned. Their concerns are just bigotry. And unreported levels of sexual assaults are also totally irrelevant.

Not all transwomen are sex offenders. And transwomen are definitely not male. Cos I say so.

Stop erasing their existence cos this is completely like comparing homosexuals to paedos and section 28.

It's just that everything I see on this is anecdotal and I only seem to see it on mumsnet. I haven't found any reliable studies or figures that says there have been X amount more attacks by transgender people, or how many attacks there actually are. Considering how much it has blown up in recent years, you would think someone would have done some proper research. Maybe they have, that's why I'm asking

You would actually think that policy makers and decision makers would have wanted to have some proper research done before moving away from sex segregated spaces and sports, yes. You would have thought that would happen. it is, after all, a major social change with potentially huge consequences for the group (women) those sex segregated spaces and services were created for.

Yet remarkable, there was no research, no pilots, no consultation with women in groups most likely to be impacted. I've worked in public service for three decades and frankly, this is unheard of. We consult to death on everything. We usually expect research and data and evaluations and pilots to inform new initiatives.

its extraordinary that EVEN NOW, the data gathering and analysis is being done by individual women and women's groups, not by public authorities. And those women are being called transphobic even for trying to gather that data. Even wanting evidence based decision making is decried as transphobic. Let that sink in.

And arguable, the onus is really to evidence that men who identify as women do pose the same risk as women do. There is no real reason to suppose they pose less of a risk than other men, especially as, in practice, services and spaces are operating under self-id so there is no criteria one has to meet to be a TW.

underthinker I was just about to post this too.

If teaandcrumpet had done some further reading they would have understood that the statistics are now meaningless. Despite being told by the government that crimes are to be reported by sex and not gender, we know that police forces are still recording crimes by gender.

However, it is also not necessary for keeping male people out of female single sex spaces. We have got the prison statistics and the % of sex crimes for that group. We also have the anecdotes, however some people wish to dismiss them.

What we don't have is either, unless posted and I have missed this, statistics for the UK for the number of male people with trans identities being attacked in the male toilets. Nor do we have any statistics or studies that show the evidence that one group of male people should be treated differently to all other male people for safeguarding decisions.

It is not just about safety either. It is about the privacy and dignity of any female person in that space that they expect to be a single sex provision.

Why should any female person accept any male person over 8 years old in their space based on that person's philosophical belief when they need that space to be female only? For any reason.

Why does this group of male people get prioritised above the needs of female people?

Because we are removing the rights of the majority to accommodate the delusion of that tiny minority.

Sorry Sofasogreat I am sure you are asking in good faith, but in the short time I have been on this thread I have already been attacked, and I really can't face getting a load of abuse.

It is a shame because I think there are a lot of women like me who are broadly supportive of trans people while recognising there are some issues that need to be resolved.

Ok number one, can we stop Referring to “women” and “women’s concerns” as if they are a monolith. You do not speak for women. I am a woman, and have very opposite / different concerns.

We know that positive affirmation of children is not a neutral act. We know that social transition of children from a very early age before they are capable of consenting is not a neutral act

you are right here , of course,
Equally, labelling a child a girl or boy at or before birth is also not a neutral act. Enforcing those labels on them , regardless of the distress or suffering it causes , is also not a neutral act.
I have just had a baby. Every single encounter I had with any health professional of any description, up until my pregnancy , and all through the process of birth , started with this conversation : “do you know what you are having…” every single time I wanted to answer: “well… im expecting a baby” But politeness prevented me from doing so, of course.
this is how powerful and pervasive gender - and sex(!) - is as a social construct. (Saying sex is a social construct does not mean that people don’t have materially different types of bodies by the way, and of course, no sane person would deny this).

im interested in a policy debate about “safe spaces” but it is impossible on the current terms, where people have zero empathy, insight and understanding of the lived experience of being trans.

As a rule GC women do care about trans-people. They care about the harms to them. They care that they don't want to be discriminated against

this is wholeheartedly nothing like what I’ve seen from “GC feminists”.

Nobody is stopping them living their life.
But they haven't changed sex because that is not possible.
Which is what has been said on this thread about a million times.

Equally, labelling a child a girl or boy at or before birth is also not a neutral act. Enforcing those labels on them , regardless of the distress or suffering it causes , is also not a neutral act.

I knew my dd was a girl before she was born because I had an amnio. The 'label' was applied at conception, XX sex chromosomes. This is a neutral biological act.

What is wrong is that rather than merely observing the sex - real, different and important - is that society then does 'assign a gender'. Usually on a 'gender reveal' thread someone will point this out. Colour coding an unborn child and then a baby and then treating it differently is exactly what 'gender critical' people want to stop!

I understand you don't like being attacked and some of the replies to you haven't been particularly constructive, but I'm afraid this does seem to be a bit of a pattern of response from people supporting modern trans rights activism.

No data, no useful anecdote, no factual or historical debate; it tends to always, always end up in "you don't understand trans people's terrible lives"/"you want trans people dead"/"everyone who has a problem with trans people are just old fashioned bigots".

I think it's really important that we all get to debate and discuss. I know it's not nice to have a lot of people disagree with you (I've experienced it on other boards) but it's not actual threats or violence. It's disagreement.

I truly want to understand why people still think it's OK to compare having problems with TRAs and what they're asking for, with the homophobia of the 20th century. Lots of posters have explained why they aren't comparable - will you engage with those comments? Again, I'm sorry if this sounds goady, I just really want a conversation so I can understand where my own logic might be going wrong.

I find the whole thing ironic.

We spent DECADES fighting for equal rights for men and women so that gender was irrelevant (other than obviously the sperm/egg issue for having a baby!).

And yet now there's such a big deal about "belonging" to a gender and people getting in a huff if someone gets it wrong.

WHO CARES?! What does gender matter (other than for reproduction)? Why can't we all just be human beings and not feel obliged to have to label everyone?!

I only judge people on one thing - whether they're a nice person or not. I couldn't care less what age, gender, skin colour a person is. If they're nice then they're my sort of person.

Quite. Gender is made up nonsense. Sex is a scientific, biological fact that will affect everyone, but especially women, for most of their lives.

Equally, labelling a child a girl or boy at or before birth is also not a neutral act

Well yes and no. Correctly sexing a baby is a neutral act. Social expectations put on that child because of that sex, is not.
And that is what feminists fight against. We fight against women being restricted because of expectations/ treatment/ oppression put on us because of our sex.

Its one of the reasons GC feminists are against gender ideology. We see it as reinforcing sex based stereotypes. As we see it as presenting a narrative that boys should be like this, and girls should be like that, and if you aren't, you might not really be a boy of girl at all.

If you object to sex stereotyping, you really should join us.

WHO CARES?! What does gender matter (other than for reproduction)? Why can't we all just be human beings and not feel obliged to have to label everyone?!

Not at all, 'gender' doesn't matter for reproduction either.

But for a very small number of things, sex does matter crucially.
To take the probably least controversial, it matters in sports because humans are dimorphic. Men and women can't compete fairly and safely together in many sports, as is now being realised after a very foolish allowing of sports to be divided by 'gender' for no rational reason.

@Helleofabore

I think many of those people do want to interact with it - very strongly

They just prefer their own interaction to be hidden away, where other people can't hear what they are saying - including their belittling of women.

I on the other hand, want this out in the open, with a wide range of views being heard and questioned.