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 It reinforces outdated norms instead of challenging them.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.

And some are doing it out of misguided love for their children.

baby led weaning has alit to answer for

Baby led weaning?!?!

And some are doing it out of misguided love for their children.

baby led weaning has alit to answer for

I guess what is meant here is the tendency of some parents to defer to the whims and wishes of their children rather than being a parent who imposes common sense and boundaries. 'Baby lead weaning' works so long as it's not interpreted as allowing your child to eat nothing but sweets.

Yeah

i mean I’m being tongue in cheek, but I think some of the traction that gender has gained is in part due to powerful people having trans kids and therefore fighting to change organisations, policies, attitudes to fit their kids experience of reality.

(instead of it just being their teenagers entirely normal question for indentity colliding with the internet/social media, increased mental health awareness and ideation etc)

These parents are of the age where the prevalent style of parenting has been child led. So yeah baby lead weaning etc is my slightly tongue in cheek take on it, but there are so many ways that in the last 20 years parenting has become more child centred and child led.

so it’s just a progression of the same parenting style for these parents to be led by their teen offspring, and follow and support them regardless. To think that their kids know themselves better and to be kind and communicative, collaborative , protect emotional health, not challenge.

and in order to do that these parents are trying and change the world around their kids . And their kids have been brought up to believe that’s what they’re entitled to.

being put in a space marked woman forever, feels like that would be a loss of freedom, an inequality, even if it's to "protect" me

I can understand this frustration, to an extent. We were told women were 'equal' to men. It feels unfair to be told that men are not only physically larger and stronger, but commit most violence and 99% of all sex abuse.

It is unfair. Women are at a disadvantage when it comes to physical size, strength - not to mention risk of pregnancy.

This is how the world is. And this is why we have safeguards, laws, rules and regulations, as well as social conventions, to try to lessen the risks. It's to aim for equity.

It doesn't mean that women aren't strong, or that we are lesser than men. Physical strength isn't a measure of moral worth or value, unless you are suggesting 'might is right', which most feminists don't. It just means that the two sexes are different, largely because our bodies are evolved around our reproductive function.

It's always a bit lowering to read the luxury beliefs of women who want to remove other more vulnerable women's rights.

I'm neutral on your wish to campaign for you personally to be able to share a cell with a male prisoner Jeanette, but it's frankly disappointing to see you have so little empathy for women who think differently to you for their own reasons.

I don't understand how the #metoo movement can co exist with the sentiments that Jeanette expresses. How is it possible to campaign for society to realise how prevalent violence against women is and at the same time want to remove safeguarding in the form of single sex spaces.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/numberofbabieswithintersextraits

The number of babies born with ambiguous sex is so rare that the ONS do not have stats.

'it is very rare that the sex of a child is recorded as indeterminate or intersex within birth registrations so no figures are published on this due to the small numbers.'

I don't think many of these people are interested in the logical consistency of the positions. So much of it is just supporting the 'in' thing.

It isn’t compatible.

One is a utopian vision for the future and the other is reality that we live in today.

If society only dealt with harm with the threat of laws, and those laws were an almost perfect deterrent and that all those breaking laws were rightfully punished, we might not need many in any preventative measures except for people’s privacy and dignity (which Jeannette seems to not have relating to their personal boundaries ). However, we live in a society where we have laws (some are confusing at the moment) and we don’t have either successful prosecution rates or proportionate punishments and many victims don’t even bother reporting crimes committed against them.

It is nice to have a vision, but we need to find equitable solutions for now.

Or discussing whataboutery.

I think one of the worst things about this belief system is the attempt to eradicate the word 'woman'. I received a letter from the NHS recently, inviting me for a smear test. The letter said that 'people with a cervix' should have regular smear tests. The word 'woman' was not used in the letter once. Why has the word 'woman' become so taboo and/or frightening? Do we not exist anymore? Do the powers that be find us threatening? To me it harks back to the days of the witch hunts and when men were terrified of women, especially women's genitalia. I actually found the letter from the NHS quite offensive. If this is the case, why don't they write to all men as well, just in case that particular man is a 'person with a cervix'? It's a complete nonsense. Women have been having periods and babies for thousands of years, and suddenly this unique experience, in my opinion, is being completely belittled and taken for granted by this strange cult in the government and the media who want to pretend that men can do all these things too. I read somewhere that there are some women who receive such letters and don't think it applies to them, because they don't necessarily know what a cervix is or know that they have one (the article was referring to women who perhaps are neuro-diverse or who may have leaning needs). Therefore, they don't make an appointment. So the NHS letters are often missing their target audience and defeating their own object.

However, I regularly drive past an NHS sign alerting me to the fact that every forty minutes, a 'man' is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Not 'a person with a prostate gland'. I feel as if women are gradually being eroded from our society and issues/problems that only women have are being belittled and swept aside, because apparently a man can experience them all too. I actually read a BBC article the other day about a man who the BBC state is going through the menopause....even this is not limited to women anymore. I think in the long run if this madness continues, there will be many women who don't seek help for medical issues because there won't be 'women's medical issues' anymore, and I for one think it will lead to women not being taken seriously as a legitimate group of people, with completely unique health needs.

Another point is that the position that this doesn't affect anyone but a very small minority of trans people is not true. It harms everyone because it is attempting to change the meaning of words and laws we all abide by. It's attempting to alter the fabric of our society.

Hear, hear.

Exactly. This has not affected men the same way. It's not about trans rights, it's about men's rights (at the expense of women's).

Thank you! It is exactly that. I actually think it's a really good excuse for another nice little round of misogyny, disguised as 'diversity' or whatever trendy name they come up with.

One male person's inclusion in the NHS Fife female changing room negatively impacts many female people. It has also caused massive amounts of energy and investment to be expended to work through, and now a 30 year experienced nurse has been lost to the A&E department. This has many knock ons impacting many people.

The male person in the Darlington NHS changing room had 30 female nurses on record as complaining.

One male included in a female sport negatively impacts many. One male in a female prison negatively impacts many, including female prison guards and any female person who comes in contact where that male person has to be treated as if they are female.

Any person trying to declare that male inclusion is harmless as it is 'only a few' is ignoring the real life repercussions.

It is also now being shown very clearly just how harmful it is to use the pronouns that someone wants society to use where a male person is referred to as being female and vice versa. These are not 'harmless' decisions at all.

It's also all the women who feel deeply uncomfortable, but have been scared into compliance and saying nothing.

What toil is that taking on women? Some of whom (like Sandy) have been the victims of sexual assault?

The chilling effect the whole "no debate" era produced is not harmless either. Many people's careers and work have been affected. Many people have had to either stay silent to survive or have spoken out and lost work and relationships. It's changed the way people act. Not in a good way. There is an Orwellian atmosphere.

truth isn't important to many. compliance and conformity is. Watching this quietly from the sidelines has certainly made sense of history to me.

Of course! The numbers harmed are usually of those who feel they cannot say a thing.

Look at the women now putting NCAA through court for allowing Thomas into their changing room and their events. I don’t know that they were part of the initial group voicing their complaints. And they have told at the coercive force their university applied saying that any complaint would likely mean that those women’s future would be harmed. Even application to grad schools and employment.

This is where all the ‘but it is so few’ simply doesn’t work.

Well, we have people on this thread arguing for mixed sex prison cells.

That is by most measures, ludicrous. If you put convicted rapists in with women, what do we think will happen?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/

However, as mad and as cruel as it is to put rapists into prison cells with women, the actual governments of countries support this.

Including our own country's government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729029

https://order-order.com/2023/01/27/lisa-nandy-backed-male-rapists-in-womens-prisons/

'Back when she was campaigning to become Labour leader, Lisa Nady was asked directly whether men identifying as women should be allowed in women’s prisons. The questioner used the 2018 example of a child rapist who was convicted and then went onto claim he was a woman.

Nandy was asked whether he should be accommodated in a women’s or a men’s prison…

“I believe fundamentally in people’s right to self ID… so I think that crimes that are recorded should be recorded as that person wishes.”

“You asked about whether trans people should be in women’s or men’s prisons. I think trans women are woman and trans men are men. So I think they should be accommodated in the prison of their choosing.”'

It's easy to dismiss the proposals of a random person on the internet (no offense to anyone on the thread, but we are all random people on the internet on an anonymous chat board).

It's sobering to think that politicians with power also support these positions.

The effect on safeguarding has been chilling. Ignore your survival instincts - they are bigoted. Mince your words, use confusing double-speak, or better still, say silent. If your child is questioning their gender identity, let them have secret discussions about it with an adult outside the family who may or may not have their best interests at heart. You, the parent, have no right to know.

This may be triggering for some people to read. However, for those who deny there is an issue with males who are in female prison estates, and who don’t even bother to consider the impact on female prison staff. Maybe this will bring things into perspective.

www.canlii.org/en/on/onwsiat/doc/2022/2022onwsiat1544/2022onwsiat1544.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALVHJhbnNnZW5kZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=5

Summary:

Female prison officer in female prison told that duty that night was to watch male on suicide watch. The prison officer told her manager she was a child sex abuse survivor and didn’t feel she could do it. The manager said there was no one else and to do it until manager could find replacement. None came.

cSA survivor had to watch male wanking and going to the toilet. Male knew a woman was watching.

Prison officer took employer to tribunal for PTSD and retraumatisation.
It isn’t just about the inmates. it is also about female prison staff EVEN when male is ‘segregated’.

This is just another reason we segregate by people's sex.