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 It reinforces outdated norms instead of challenging them.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.

I also think it's difficult to talk about this issue often because it's so multifaceted, it's not just one group of people it affects, it's many in different ways for different reasons. It's like trying to say what an elephant is when you encounter it by touch in a dark room. You're only going to be describing the bit of it close to you, but it's actually much larger than that. But so often it's talked about it simple slogan type ways and that is presented as a good thing. I guess it's very brexity.

Wouldn’t know these days!!

Nobody believes in gender identity?

Nowhere on earth? 8bn people. Thousands of different cultures. Millennias of history.

And nobody believes in gender identity - not one soul.

Ok.

The effect on safeguarding has been chilling. Ignore your survival instincts - they are bigoted.

Yes. Even after we expend all the time, money, and energy to get things back to some semblance of sense, where men are not sent to women's prisons, etc, what damage will have been done to girls' and women's senses of self preservation?

What do they do if a man exposes him to them? How do they raise concerns about a creep? If they encounter a man in a women's space, what do they do?

Laurie Penny advises they avert their eyes and mind their own business.

It’s strange the power people grant to penises. Why are penises a specific threat to women?

I can think of many ways I can be harmed without any penis necessary.

Of course people believe in gender identity. People believe in all sorts of nonsense.

Do you understand how a woman gets pregnant?

JFC. Not even going to dignify this with a considered reply, but perhaps you should ask a rape victim what difference a penis made in her assault.

@JeannetteBlue

You state that "mixed sex does feel weird sometimes but the alternative to me is weirder and more restrictive" and "segregated spaces mean loss of freedom".

In the UK we do live in a mixed sex society and only in certain circumstances do we have single sex rules. We can look more deeply at the effects of single sex provision on people.

1. Single sex Sport - Women will have more opportunity - men will have the same* *opportunity because they will still be competing with the same strongest, fastest, most advantaged bodies.
2. Mixed sex sport - Women will have less 'freedom' or opportunity to compete and men will have more.

1. Single sex changing provision - Women will have more freedom to change away from biological male gaze and away from biologically male bodies. Biological males, however they identify to not share the same biological experiences (of which they are many) that are unique to only women.
2. Mixed sex changing provision - Many women will lose their freedom to partake in the activity due to males being present where their undress. This could range from religious reasons to personal boundaries which are all legitimate reasons. I'm not even sure they would benefit trans women because we know that when trans women have been offered a third space they have openly refused this. In the Dr Beth Upton case just last week, Beth was asked why he could have changed in a third space which was available and he said that he wouldn't use it because it would 'other' him.

If you believe that single spaces are not worth the increased level of protection that they provide for women because they reduce freedoms, then ask yourself whether you would walk through a park a night on your own or whether you lock your door at night. Would you run a red light whilst driving or cross a road without looking?
All these things limit our freedom but we reduce the risks of theft, death and rape by adhering to these rules. Most people believe the reduced freedom is worth the reduced risk.

It’s strange the power people grant to penises. Why are penises a specific threat to women?

Seriously?
Of course 'having a penis' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for harming women, but they're a specific threat for the uniquely male crime of rape.

More broadly, 'people who have, or have ever had' a penis (ie males) are statistically vastly more likely to commit violent and/or sexual crimes against women vs 'people who've never had a penis'.

It's strange how people like to try to talk about penises as being detached from the male people who use them to harm others.

It is bluntly, irrelevant that you can think of many ways you can be harmed without any penis necessary. In fact, many of us have been arguing just that point too though. That removing a penis doesn't make a male person any less of a risk of harm in general, it only makes that male person less likely to harm someone with a penis.

But it is irrelevant that you, personally, can think of many other ways you can be harmed. Because we are discussing the incremental harms that female people face due to a male person being in a single sex space where they should be excluded.

Just because there are many other ways to harm someone, doesn't mean that laws and policies and processes reflecting those laws and policies should not be in place as an added protection for female people and children.

I think the question about whether people 'believe' should be phrased slightly differently.

Plenty of people believe in gender identity, agreed.

I think what the original post was getting at was whether people genuinely believe that 'gender identity' is more important than biological, sexual reality - and deserves to be prioritised ahead of it?

How many people genuinely think that there is solid, rational, fair grounds for doing this? And how many are supporting it for other reasons?

I do.

Is pregnancy a specific harm over and above any other harm that could be caused to a woman? I can think of many many harmful things that could occur to me that don’t involve pregnancy.

It’s weird the obsession with penises as a unique source of harm.

So rape is the unique and most harmful thing that can befall a woman?

So rape is the unique and most harmful thing that can befall a woman?

Did anyone claim that?

So just talk about male violence.

People constantly mention “penises” because of this weird belief that somehow rape is the ultimate worst act of violence that can befall a woman. I hear this with debate of post-op transgender women with some people arguing the op makes them less of a threat - as if the penis is the deadliest tool on earth in and of itself.

No. It's all whatabboutery to distract from the significant harm being done to women via this ideology.

They are masters at it 🙄

Ffs.
We do talk about 'male violence'. A lot.

I think sometimes the penis gets mentioned not because of rape but because the transactivists try to corrupt the meaning even of the word 'male'.

I don't think women are obsessed with penises at all. I think some men are 'obsessed' with using their penis as a weapon. Rape has been used as a weapon of war FFS! there's no getting away from it.

Honestly, you are sounding very much like the mayor of Mazan right now

I think you will find that the people who bring penises into the discussion are the ones who declare that the group of male people who have had theirs surgically removed should be given special consideration and allowed to access female single sex spaces.

I don't believe others would generally discuss male people's violent acts specifically in relation to penises normally.

Your posts are really in the line of 'look there is a bat, let's discuss that instead'. You are censuring people from having discussions that include but are not limited to the current penis having status of the potential offender.

"I hear this with debate of post-op transgender women with some people arguing the op makes them less of a threat - as if the penis is the deadliest tool on earth in and of itself."

And you will find that many of us arguing that all male people are excluded do not believe that those male people are significantly less of a threat of harm to female people.

In fact, you are likely to find that many posters on this thread agree mostly or fully with that statement you have just made and have been arguing just that point.

Male violence includes but is not exclusive of, using a penis. That only males have. It’s pretty wild that you are either really ignorant or being wilfully obtuse. I’m not really sure what point you’re trying (and failing) to make.

No one has said rape is the most harmful and unique thing that ‘can befall a woman’, however if you were a woman who had been raped then I’m sure - to that woman - it might be the worst thing to have happened to them personally. Who the fuck are you to decide?

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Yes. Imagine trying to argue with women whether rape is the most harmful thing that could happen to women? I know we're used to all the transactivist "genital inspection" "single sex is removing my rights" tropes, but it seems there's always the capacity for transactivists to become even more offensive.