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.

OP you are not wrong.

On this thread you can clearly see the emotional manipulation, hyperbole and feet stamping because women won't just all roll over to the demands of these men.

Then there is the outright denial that any of this impacts on women (when there is reams of evidence that it does). Or if it's not denied it's not considered important enough - who care's if the women are impacted? The desires of these men are the only consideration.

Then there's the lies.

Believing in sex over gender is not homophobic. The LGB part of the rainbow flag are not removing anyone's rights. In fact the T are insisting that men can be lesbians, that's about as homophobic as you can get.

The lies that there are more than 2 sexes which is complete nonsense.

And then there's the 'we don't want you to talk about it on this board'. (AIBU). Think about why that is? They don't want people to read these posts because the whole ideology is based upon lies and emotional manipulation. Someone might read these posts and understand the issues fully for the first time. The activists really don't want that to happen. If they were secure in their position they wouldn't want this thread moved as they would be able to defend it fully.

No, it’s England AND Wales, as confirmed below by Refuge. Please do share your evidence that 3-5 women are murdered by their male partners in the uk every day.
https://refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%20feels%20incredibly%20isolating,call%20999%20in%20an%20emergency.

I’ve literally never said that unisex changing rooms don’t put women at risk, you’re making a very strange presumption there. I don’t agree with unisex changing rooms. I’m just arguing that of all the risks women face, it’s a small one and a weird one to focus on that detracts from larger issues.

I’d never say increased risk doesn’t matter as women will be attacked anyway, what a bizarre thing to say. Are you okay?!

Lol comparing trans to being gay. Gay people took nothing from womens rights and their rights weren't in conflict with ours. Hardly the same. But a pitifully desperate tactic.

Still waiting for your stats that prove:

A. 3-5 women are killed every day by their partners in the uk
B. Mixed sex spaces don’t put women at a higher risk.

You’re the expert right? Shouldn’t be hard for you to show us the evidence.

Sure let me load up my sensitive workplace reports and individual cases and share them on a mumsnet forum. Y’all are wild. You seem so very against believing how violent men are, very strange!

You’re very adamant about protecting men and denying the amount of women attacked and murdered in the open by biological men. For someone so passionate about women’s rights you seem very desperate to deny the true numbers of women we are losing per day. Are you sure you’re for women’s rights??

FWIW I used to be v supportive of trans people and was on the TWAW side, used wrong sex pronouns etc. That wasn’t enough for the aggressive TRA side though, it’s not enough to be kind. It’s got to be complete capitulation

Murders are publicly recorded, it’s not exclusively secretly recorded by your work place so no need to share your work files, just government statistics would do. Whenever you’re ready…

And I’m still waiting for your actual evidence that shows getting changed in a unisex changing room puts women at a greater risk than simply living with a violent man, or walking home alone after a night out, or getting into a taxi.

Why are you so desperate to protect men, yet hate trans women? It’s such a weird thing to focus on.

This ad nauseam protestation really isn't as benign as it looks. It does hurt. That's because, sometimes, sex does matter. And if compelled use of language breaks down distinctions between the sexes to the extent that questioning that boundary becomes socially more difficult or impossible, you cannot then determine where the line as to protection of women's rights, spaces, and sports needs to be drawn.

The word 'safeguarding' is flagged as a keyword for 'dog whistling' as far as the GI movement is concerned, with good reason. It threatens any desire to be perceived 100% in accordance with 'gender' presentation. But you can't influence how others perceive you, however polite they choose to be on the surface. If you question most people, they'd probably tell you that they respect the rights of anyone to present in whatever way they feel most comfortable. When prisons, sports, changing areas etc enter the conversation, there then needs to be a discussion as to whose rights matter, and there's a growing groundswell of opinion that one group's rights don't supersede that of another (women as a sex).

As to the fraught 'pronoun' question - I've become adept in linguistic contortionism to avoid using sex/gender-based pronouns at all. That way no one can be offended. I've no desire to be rude to anyone, but by the same token women's rights have recently proved to be far more precarious than we thought they were. They must be protected: and this doesn't come at the cost of another group who were never entitled to those rights to begin with.

The lie that humans can change sex is precisely that. A lie.

I think it's because they don't want the truth to get out and people's eyes to be opened to the harm that gender ideology causes. If you don't want to read this topic don't click on the link. It's easy. You would only want it moved out of the busier section of this forum if you were worried about how many other people might read it.

And tbh the trans rights discussion and that about VAWG are part of the same thing IMO. Both are rooted in misogyny. It’s all part of the same whole

YANBU OP. Any male in female single sex spaces makes it a mixed sex space. This will mean that many women will self exclude from their own spaces (assuming they have choice, unlike prisons for example). Unfortunately, some people don’t give a shit about those women.

The claim is mixed sex changing rooms put women at higher risk than single sex, why on earth would it be compared to taxis?! You said it wasn’t true, please do share your evidence, I’ve already shared mine.

Unlikely, since @Crispsandcola doesn't seem to understand what biological sex is.
Answer: Male and female are reproductive categories, male being the sex that generates small, moving gametes (sex cells) and female is the sex that generates larger, non-moving gametes. This is true throughout the mammal kingdom, most other animals and the majority of plants.

The same poster also offered these gems:

your narrow perception of how human beings are formed, apparently labouring under the misconception that human beings can be made by other means than a male gamete joining with a female one.

Biological males can still be women because gender is a social construct - incoherent. Woman is the word for an adult female of the human species, like mare is the word for an adult female horse. Biological males can't be women because they're male, not female. The social constructs of gender have nothing to do with that!

Obviously by pure numbers attacks like this are smaller, TW are a small demographic and people spend a small % of their time in changing rooms of any description.

The point is that unlike other forms of male violence on women, this is the result of a conscious and deliberate political choice to enable it, and those that are attacked are seen as acceptable collateral damage.

The alternative would be to have laws and policies that say that of course people can dress however they like, feel about themselves however they like, and be protected from discrimination, but there are a few places and services in society that are traditionally segregated by sex and they should remain that way.

Well you do seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't be so worried/focused in TW in women's spaces. Apparently because it "detracts" from the larger issue of violence against women. Which seems a very odd stance to take. Its also a lot easier to make women's spaces single sex than address all of the issues that cause men to be violent to women and girls. I don't understand why anyone concerned with violence against women and girls would argue AGAINST discussing women's single sex spaces. It doesn't make sense.

I find the false equivalence with homophobia utterly tiresome.

This ideology hurts gay men and women particularly hard because the likes of Stonewall have adopted homophobic definitions of homosexuality replacing sex with gender. We then have the wailings of straight males and females that gay and lesbians are transphobic for having 'genital preferences' and the demands to be allowed into their dating pool.

This is abusive.

It rewinds the clock and allows for 'progressive homophobia'. Women are going back into the closet because of the harassment they are getting from males who want lesbians to validate their identity as women.

This is not ok.

This is the problem with trans activitism and the major difference between being gay.

It is the DEMANDS it places on others and the COERCIVE behaviour that's accompanying it and the undoing of the progress made in accepting homosexually without trying to convert with crap like 'if you just try it'. And nonsense about loving the person not the body they are in.

Sexual attraction does have elements of personality involved but anyone who says physical attractiveness isnt also a valid and normal thing is outright lying. There are whole industries built on the concept of beauty and sexual attraction being visual and about sex.

I find arguments like this wholly disengenous for this reason.

It's ignorant and should be spelt out repeatedly that it's NOT OK to make the comparison and Trojan Horse the gay rights movement at the very expense of gays and lesbians. It's dishonest and nasty to be emotionalky blackmailing anyone.

Make your case on your own terms and address the legitimate concerns about drugs, offending patterns, sexism, homophobia, reinforcing gender stereotypes, the privacy and dignity of women, the safety of women, the harms of 'default male' that gender neutral language produces in making women's issues and concerns invisible again and most of all cut the abusive coercive emotional blackmail.

We aren't rolling over passively and 'being kind' without these issues being resolved. Deferring to men is in the past.

You’re very adamant about protecting men and denying the amount of women attacked and murdered in the open by biological men. For someone so passionate about women’s rights you seem very desperate to deny the true numbers of women we are losing per day. Are you sure you’re for women’s rights??

Personally I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some under-reporting of male violence against women - I'm curious why you see such a large discrepancy versus the published data?
None of which has any bearing on the subject of this thread but maybe you could start another one specifically on this.

"And we lose our jobs, our safety, our dignities and our rights in law, then that seriously fucking harms girls and women."

Can you genuinely explain how a stranger's decision to wear a dress might cause you to "lose your job"?
how would it "effect your dignity" or your rights in any way ?

Without any castrophising. Actual examples.
Cause it can feel like fear-mongering otherwise.

@PrincessZelda89 you do know that it's possible to focus on more than one issue at once?

Yes we care that women are at risk from domestic abuse and are more likely to be killed by their partner than a stranger.

But we can also care that the overall risk to women of harm by males has increased due to the fact that we don't have the safeguarding of single sex spaces due to the demands of the trans activists.

Are you suggesting that we should only focus on the first one because that seems odd to me? unless you are supporting of the rights of men to access women's single sex spaces?

One male in a woman's changing room over years can impact on how many women?

This is the problem. The numbers are small in one direction but the numbers impacted by even a single male is potentially huge.

The truth is the truth. Nobody likes a liar.