I do not believe in gender identity.

[SernieBanders]

There are two sexes: male and female. Occasionally, that matters.

There is no such thing as an innate gender identity—no internal essence that makes someone more inclined to wear dresses and sip wine, or football boots and down pints. Those are cultural stereotypes, not proof of some mystical gendered soul.

The idea of gender identity is sexist, misogynistic, and regressive. It reinforces outdated norms instead of challenging them. Women do not need an inner feeling of womanhood to be women. Men do not need a gender identity to be men. Sex is real. Stereotypes are not.

I hope with the flurry of cultural changes, legal challenges, scientific findings and executive orders in the last ~12 months, more people feel able to stand up and be counted, and say - No More.

You are what your chromosones are. You are (in most cases) either XX, or XY.
If you're XX you are female, if you're XY, you are male.
You can alter yourself aesthetically/cosmetically, but you cannot change your biology.
A female can become a masculine presenting female, and a male can become a feminine presenting male, but a male can never become a female and vice versa. AT PRESENT.

Some species can change their chromosones and genuinely change sex, but until human biology evolves to the point that chromosones can change naturally, or science advances to make some chemical you can take to force chromosones to switch from X to Y or reversed, then it is not possible to change sex.

So no, i don't believe in trans men, trans women, and none binary. I believe in biological men, and biological women, and that some of those men and women choose to alter their physical appearance to resemble the other sex, or look androgenous, but they can't change their sex. The term "cis" is also completely ridiculous.

It's just common sense you speak.

Intersex is just the old terminology- in modern day it is referred to as DSD.

Agree, wear what you like, feel what you like, but it doesn't change what you were born as female or male.
It's mad that they can teach our children absolute crap at schools, it's destroying to their minds

I think it's interesting what you define as "women's rights" and "men's rights".
As a woman (and a human) I want the right for me and everyone else to be able to live how they want to regarding gender. I don't want to be barred from certain spaces due to my sex - I want that right. I want the right for people to not decide things about me based on my body instead of my choices.

You won't reply to this comment because you have already decided that no one benefits from these rights except male predators. You've already decided that "female" people who want these rights have been brainwashed. You've already decided that the sex binary is very important and that it will cause significant harm if anyone blurs the sex binary.

The sex binary is harmful. It's the cause of the idea of gender, because people are divided by sex and women are oppressed as biologically and mentally inferior.

If we totally got rid of the sex binary, and everyone was just people, some who wear dresses and some who don't, what would we lose? How would this be more oppressive than the sex binary which creates two camps of people and says one of them is aggressive and the other is a victim?

Do you actually believe that women are biologically inferior and need to be physically separated from anyone male, lest they be attacked? Is that truly consistent with a feminist belief in the equality of the sexes? It's very different to my feminism then which believes these differences are largely exaggerated in order to oppress and separate women.

Why is it so important what body you have? Why do people need to know someone's genetics, in everyday life? What happens to people who simply look not masculine or not feminine enough?

Do you want to be barred from wearing "manly" clothes in case someone mistakes you for a man? Do we all need special hats to show our true biological sex at all times? Again, why is it so important?

I'm not even going into whether gender feelings are "real". They clearly aren't for you. But you should still have this freedom.

You won't reply to this.

If we totally got rid of the sex binary, and everyone was just people, some who wear dresses and some who don't, what would we lose?

Anything where women and girls can be where men can’t:

Single sex spaces
Toilets
Changing rooms
Sport
Prisons

and so on.

As JKR said, dress how you please, but deny sex is real?!

Why do you want all sport, spaces, prisons, changing rooms to be mixed sex? You think this would be safe and progressive?

How strange.

"Do you actually believe that women are biologically inferior "

Female people are not 'equal' to male people in the way you are trying to position the point. We are certainly not 'inferior' but we are indeed different and we do have limits that some people would categorise as 'inferior'. We really cannot lift as much as male people, and we really cannot lift heavy weights as often and over as long a time as male people. These are proven scientific facts.

Female people are 'equal' to male people in many instances. However female people are not male people. Their bodies are not 'equal' to male people in the way that you seem to be trying to say they are. They certainly are equal in intelligence, in ability to manage people, in so many aspects in different careers. But physically, no. We are not just small male people.

For instance, female sports events are to celebrate the very best performance that people with female sexed bodies can perform. They need to have a protected category, restricted to female people only to be able to have this performance celebrated.

They are as fit as the male athletes. They work at least as hard as the male athletes. They have to approach sports differently in some or maybe many instances. They have to cope with menstruation and pregnancy and the negative impacts of sexism. Their kit is most usually adapted for their bodies.

That is equity. We need equity to achieve equality of opportunity because female people are not just small male people

Feminists didn't fight for female people to be treated only as if they were male people in every single instance for employment either. Just acknowledging that female people have physical limitations compared to the general male population is not unfeminist.

There is a difference between treating female people as if they were exactly like male people and making sure that female people were not subject to illegitimate negative sex based discrimination.

There are legitimate sex discriminations allowed too. Such as employing female care providers for female people who feel they want to have only female care providers. Such as having female staff only in a women's refuge. These are necessary.

Do you actually believe that women are biologically inferior and need to be physically separated from anyone male, lest they be attacked? Is that truly consistent with a feminist belief in the equality of the sexes? It's very different to my feminism then which believes these differences are largely exaggerated in order to oppress and separate women.

Women are biologically different to men. Not inferior. Women's bodies can do extraordinary things that there is no male equivalent for (like grow and feed a baby) - but they do not have equivalent upper body strength, lung capacity, arm reach, etc, etc to men.

Any feminism that fails to take basic reality into account is fundamentally flawed.

'Do you actually believe that women are biologically inferior and need to be physically separated from anyone male, lest they be attacked? Is that truly consistent with a feminist belief in the equality of the sexes?'

Yes. And yes.

And my opinion is based on reviewing the statistics and having a basic knowledge of what safeguarding means.

98% of all sex offenses are committed by male people and the vast majority of their victims are female people. As I have also posted, male people have proven strength advantages. The average male has a grip strength that is 160% that of the average female. Meaning they can grab and keep hold of something, including another human, more securely. And this has very little difference if a male person has their testosterone dramatically reduced. Muscle strength and skeletal advantages are barely reduced with reduction of testosterone. And this is just the start.

Safeguarding principles are used to assess the risk of harm to the group that they are being used to protect. It is a foolish notion to believe that be removing safeguarding principles that female people will not be directly harmed. It is good to remember Chesterton's fence here.

Now, with online streaming and cameras on phones, there is now even more need to have female single sex spaces. The concept of safeguarding is about reduction of harm to as low as we can make it while still going about our business. It is not going to provide 100% protection and there are some people who will try to argue that because no where is totally safe, why bother? Well, we bother because with safeguarding, we can make the risk of harm to others as low as we can.

So, yes. I do think that female people need single sex spaces. It is most certainly not against feminist principles to understand that these safeguarding principles actually allow female people to fully participate in life with some sense that their risk of harm perpetrated by the few male people who may do harm is lowered.

And importantly, while we know it is not all male people who will cause harm to female people, it is 'some' and from historic events we know we cannot tell who will and will not be the male person who will harm us. Therefore, safeguarding treats all male people as being of equal risk except where there has been additional measures taken. That is why single sex spaces exist.

'I don't want to be barred from certain spaces due to my sex - I want that right. I want the right for people to not decide things about me based on my body instead of my choices.'

So, you don't believe that male only support groups should be allowed? You don't believe that if a male person only wants to have a male carer because they are embarrassed to be bathed by a female person, that he should not have that opportunity? Because if you are a female person, you want the right to decide who should and should not have the right of access to these things?

You don't believe that female prisoners should have female only prisons because a male person should have the right to be there if they want to be there?

There are arguments to be had about whether a space should legitimately be considered single sex or not. Just because you want to access certain spaces and are excluded is not a valid reason to overturn a decision for a space to legitimately discriminate against people of the other sex.

Even in toilets, we need to remember that female people use female toilets in a different way to male people using their toilet space. In both cases though, humans of different sexes use the public space in a toilet differently.

Plus the gap beneath the doors in cubicles are there for reason of safety too. Fully enclosed cubicles work for some people. They do not work for others and within that group that they don't work for is the group that need a gap under the door so their welfare can be assessed. Such as those who may fall, those that fall unconscious etc.

'The sex binary is harmful.'

It is also interesting to note that for far too long, female health has been below the standard given to male people's health because much of the medical research was on male people. And many other aspects of our lives, even sports shoes at one stage.

Ignoring that female bodies are different is very harmful to women and girls. How long did it take for warnings for heart attacks to come out to include specific warnings that relate to female people?

The 'sex binary' is not the thing that is harmful. Negative sex discrimination that leads to oppression is harmful.

What is harmful is not recognising the needs of female people where there are legitimate needs and some of those needs are based on the differences in our bodies compared to male people.

'Why is it so important what body you have? Why do people need to know someone's genetics, in everyday life?'

I think I have now covered enough reasons why it is important to know what bodies people have in some instances. There are, of course, a great many instances where it is not important at all. And people can just get on with things.

It would be foolish though to believe that sex never matters outside medical treatment. Because this is a falsity.

'What happens to people who simply look not masculine or not feminine enough?'

Wouldn't it be great if someone could present however they wish to, while respecting other people also have needs where you might be excluded. Not because of how you present yourself, but because of the sex your body is categorised.

If people respected the needs of others to have those provisions based on being single sex, it would not be a matter of assessing who looks 'masculine or feminine'. However, it is also highly likely that female people can correctly sex a male person over time and interaction, no matter what they wear using the body cues that cannot be changed.

You would prefer all spaces and services to be mixed sex? No sex segregation of any kind, ever?

Have a think about what that will mean.

Medical research? Prisons? Dormitories? Changing rooms? Sport? Hospital wards?

And who would benefit from no sex segregation? Men naturally. Who loses? Women.

So why would any woman want this? Serious question.

All this talk about people with DSD’s has zero relevance to the topic though.
The alphabet rainbow umbrella makes no sense whatsoever.

Membership of LGB is not dependent on a biological fallacy. The categories are related and fixed and nobody else needs to participate. The letters describe someone’s sexual orientation, whose rights in the past were not equal to straight people.

Trans is not about sexual orientation, it is dependent upon biological fallacy and other people are required to participate with the fallacy. Trans people have the same legal rights as straight people. They cannot not be discriminated against, they can marry who ever they like etc.

‘Intersex’ people with a disorder of sexual development do not share a common sexual orientation, they do share a disorder where their genitalia can be ambiguous, missing or misleading.

Please can someone explain why these three groups are put under one umbrella.

“How would this be more oppressive than the sex binary which creates two camps of people and says one of them is aggressive and the other is a victim?”

Is this like the philosophy where if we just treat everyone as if they will act for the betterment of all and will not harm others, then they will do that?

The material reality, the one most of us acknowledge and live in everyday, understands that most people will not harm others. However, there really is no way to tell most of the time who will and won’t.

And statistics are very easy to find, that show which sex category of humans attack others in the vast majority of cases, and what sex their victims are in the vast majority of cases. Also that children are all too often the victims of these attacks too. Most people live with this knowledge and they make decisions knowing this.

Do people genuinely think that male people are not typically the attackers? Or is this some kind of mantra that they say to cope with life or to feel righteous?

Do people think that if all people were considered without sex except for medical purposes and reproduction, that the people who just so happen to have the general physical advantage would not still be the ones mostly attacking the general group who they recognised as being less able to defend themselves and who have a body designed to be the one that gives them a sexual high?

Is it being positioned that if we stop segregating single sex spaces that violence against women and girls will cease? In an era of what seems like ever growing violence against women and girls?

Because one group, those who describe themselves as transgender, have leveraged the oppression that other groups have experienced to gain political attention and convince people that their demands should be agreed with.

Of course there are some people who are LGB or with DSDs who are also in that transgender group. But l think it has been well identified that they have done it for political leverage.

1 in 4 women will be raped by biological men in their life time.

Men and women are biologically different and have different medical needs.

Around 90% of violent crime is committed by men.

We have sex segregation because women fought for raised safety in particular places.
Closed rooms where we undress for example, toilets, changing rooms and hospitals. Closed spaces like prisons where we can’t escape.

I can read your privilege by your lack of empathy towards other women.

The sex binary is harmful. It's the cause of the idea of gender, because people are divided by sex and women are oppressed as biologically and mentally inferior.

The sex binary is real. We can't 'get rid of the sex binary '! Structural sexism will probably always be with us, disadvantaging women because men are 100% useless at having a baby - this can be mitigated by policies which promote equity rather than mere 'equality' but probably never 100% eliminated. We're a dimorphic species - that's why we need sports segregated by sex.

Enforced gender stereotypes are certainly harmful and used to oppress and control women, but also harmful to men.

This is why I'm not just a feminist, I'm a gender critical feminist.

I'm more than happy for everyone to have whatever 'gender expression' they want - if it breaks down this tyranny of tying externalities, preferences and assumed aptitudes to sex. Men can wear dresses, women can wear trousers - no earthly reason why not. Women can be scientists - I've been one all my life. A man can be the primary carer of children and older people. And so on. Wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of all the notions such things should in any way be sex linked?

More than 1,000 patients a year are sent for transgender mastectomy surgeries on the NHS, according to an article in Telegraph yesterday.
Thousands of patients have trans surgery

This is why threads like these are important - it's not 'just' about a minority of vulnerable people, being misled by the doctors, it's about all of us. We are all taxpayers and we are all funding surgeries that have no evidence of benefit to relieve gender dysphoria but have evidence of harm.

I often see gotcha posts by people showing a picture of a trans man who passes, crowing so you want this person in women's space do you???

The point is that when trans men go into men's spaces they take all the risks onto themselves. The risks of being discovered.

But when trans women go into women spaces, they ARE the risk.

Because it's the male sex that pose the risk to the female sex.

I think third space really is the answer. Normalizing having three spaces with changing facilities. A ladies, a gents and a mixed sex space for anyone who doesn't care, will not use the space for their own sex, or needs to go in and help somebody of the opposite sex.

86% feels pretty damned decisive to me. I have had enough of this rubbish I really have.

52% would have been enough to settle the debate once and for all.

So 86% means it's case closed forever.

The third space is the obvious answer however that’s not what TRA’s want. They want total validation that they’re women and even with a third space, many would still use the female facilities to ‘prove’ they’re women.

The third space would be evidence in their minds that they’re not fully accepted as being exactly the same as natural born women and that’s what they want!

So I’m sure for some, any mention of a third space would be considered transphobic

I think 86% might indicate that lots of people have had enough of the ideology that you can change sex, when you obviously cannot.

That more people have realised the damage humouring people or nodding along 'being kind' to those who think you can change your sex has damaged children.

That social contagion in children is damaging children.

That treating mental health and the reasons people might hate their bodies is more important that pretending changing the body is a cure all for poor mental health.

People have woken up to the damage of TRA. Realised that real women need protection. That men who want to be women might use the wolf in sheep clothing to get near to vulnerable women.

The list goes on. People are aware of the problems now.