Gender and pronouns

[Wyki]

Before I start, the daily mail and other papers can all fuck off

I’m prepared to be flamed for this as I’ve been here long enough to know how it all works but….

aibu to tell my son he can’t have his partner over any more

It’s a new relationship. My son is 21 and the new partner is 18

He barely works and is consequently on a low salary however he does help me with childcare (that I pay a minimal amount for)

the new partner is a very petite pink haired “girl” that does ballet and dance but uses the pronoun he/him

my 11 year old daughter is finding it confusing and asked if her brother is gay. I replied with “no because the partner is very feminine and is a girl despite the pronouns” (I couldn’t care less if he was gay, sexuality isn’t important)

So am I being unreasonable in saying the partner doesn’t come over as it’s just too weird and I don’t want that example being set for my daughter

We don't need to 'assume' anything about males.

I see that this thread has turned to whataboutery leveraging people with differences of sex development as being somehow similar to people who declare that they have a transgender identity.

A person with CAIS is a male person with a body that cannot process the testosterone that their testes produce. They still are a male person. However, they are one of the very rare exceptions where a male person should be treated in many instances as if they were a female person.

They are male because they have a body that has been formed around the production of small gametes, regardless of whether those gametes have ever, will ever or are currently being produced.

There is objective testing that can be done by medical experts to determine the sex of every human using a range of testing. The existence of people with these medical issues does nothing to explain people identifying as transgender.

Of course, some people with a difference of sex development may also identify as having a transgender identity.

This is worrying. It's gaslighting and brainwashing in order to teach children to ignore what they see and their instincts. It leaves them vulnerable to grooming. It's dangerous. You have to be really fucked up in the head to scold a 6 year old child for recognising your sex.

Exactly. Do they wait 6 weeks to select the embryo?

Or do they sex select the sperm. And then insert the sperm into the ova.

The worrying thing is how easily people have been brainwashed by the dangerous activists to believe the pseudoscience bullshit that sex is only determined at 6 weeks. That 6 week and 'we all start as females' lie was debunked back in the 1970s even!

Ummmmm, it REALLY WAS. From Biologists for at least a century.

Yes it IS predetermined.

By the SPERM!

Evidence of what exactly? Can you be specific in how 'Trans people are part of the minority number of people for whom biological sex just isn’t that simple:'

How is it that this group of people's sex is not as simple as being categorised as being either male or female?

And if you have evidence of this, please do link it up here so we can all understand this better.

Variations in sex development is irrelevant. The sex is set THE...MOMENT....THE....SPERM....ENTERS.....THE.....OVA.

What happens after that is totally irrelevant.

And perhaps you should also send this evidence through to the research teams in all the different countries who have been reviewing the treatments available for people who have a transgender identity. Because you obviously have access to information that they missed if you believe that there is a way to test is someone is transgender or not.

And also if a person with a transgender identity's sex category is 'not that simple', wouldn't that in itself be a test that should be being used before any treatment of a patient who has a transgender identity? If there is a complication in determining the sex of a person with a transgender identity's body, this seems to be the place to start.

It would surely be very useful for those research teams across the different countries to know. I mean, one of the states in Australia is currently conducting a review on treatment, please make sure that you send that evidence across to them.

Societal rules and constructs are based on the majority. Not the minority.

There is no 'conflating' at all. Men are biological males. Biological males are men.

Biological sex IS that simple, mental health conditions don't change that.

When you understand that the only commonality of the group of people who have gender identities is a philosophical belief, their own personal belief about themselves, that is not supported by a biological finding, it puts things into perspective.

Plus remember there are over 130+ genders including gender fluid identity.

People who wish other people to use their chosen language that fits with this philosophical belief about themselves, such as using preferred pronouns, are asking other's to comply with that philosophical belief. They want other people to act in a way that supports that philosophical belief about themselves when that action may contradict the other person's own belief in established science and established language conventions.

I find the arguments about respecting people's pronouns, and that it is kind to do so, to rarely acknowledge this. That those demanding specific language from others are the ones showing a lack of respect and a lack of kindness.

And as others have already mentioned on this thread, using language that hides the sex of any person can lead to significant safeguarding failures. The lack of accurate and precise language can also lead to misinformation and harm to others through that misinformation.

Intersex are either male or female.

Just as trans are.

So they have no place in this discussion. A poster with intersex has asked you to stop. Please RESPECT that. Intersex people have repeatedly asked that your ilk stop weaponising them. PLEASE SHOW SOME BLOODY RESPECT for their wishes!!

Yes, the using a minority for their Mens Rights Activism is fucking disgusting. They don't care who they use, as long as they strike one for Mens Rights. They are cruel, evil, selfish and abhorrent. Nothing matters to them, they will exploit anyone and anything. If they were decent, they'd accept that simple request and not continue with that line. But they truly have no thought or care for anyone but pushing the Mens Rights agenda. Nothing and no one matters. Not rape survivors, not people with intersex/DSDs. There is no vulnerable minority they won't stop at exploiting.

This.

That thug of a 'poor boxer' KNEW AT PUBERTY he was a male. Yet continued to box females. He SMIRKED when his female opponent broke down. To say he is abusive scum is too lightly a way to describe him.

And sex IS binary. In deed and in fact, DSDs confirm the sex binary. Which is why it makes no sense you drag intersex/DSDs into this. Intersex/DSDs are all still either male OR female. It confirms sex is binary. It actually proves our point. Not yours.

So does it harm anorexics to not affirm their delusion that they are fat?

What we do know, is that women and girls are harmed when gaslit to deny what our eyes see, our instincts tell us, and our lived reality as the oppressed sex class.

But you don't care about that, do you? Women and girls being harmed is collateral damage to you. Heaven forbid males be harmed by being called men though....

'Of course there's been ways to stop predatory men entering female toilets, showers, dormitories, changing rooms etc for years. Not just the social contract but laws.'

This is true.

Reading this thread has been like seeing a replay of all the usual tactics and usually based on cognitive distortions. The 'how are you going to police it anyway' tactic is a tired one but still out in force I see.

Just because there were predatory male people entering female single sex spaces before doesn't mean that female people should not expect that their single sex spaces are respected. In the past, female people could do several things. There was clarity around the laws for instance, as MrsO said.

Before signs appearing on single sex spaces told female people that they should not react to seeing a male person in that space, female people had a range of options available to them. Including leaving that space if they could, and as quickly as they could. Now society is being 'educated' by signage, and by media and by activists that they should overcome there discomfort.

A good example of this was the Victorian government ad in Australia, where a woman left the lift she was alone in when a male person walked in. Because the Victorian government wanted people to not act on their own discomfort because it could make someone unhappy, they highlighted this woman's reaction to this male person's entrance into the life as being an act of hate and bigotry. Because the male person apparently identified as a woman and therefore that somehow removed that male person from the sex category of male.

The tactic about focusing on the policing the space aspect is one that also brings in absolutism. Because it is also usually mentioned that because a female single sex space cannot be 100% secure, that we should expect no single sex space at all.

And that is then usually joined by the 'how can you tell anyway' argument.

Argh, male, I meant.

Yes, I think everyone dependent on the NHS for their care should breathe a large sigh of relief that @Galwaygirlxxx is not practising medicine in the UK.

Tandora quite obviously sees women as second class citizens whose needs for safety and dignity are much less important than male's being 'misgendered' (aka correctly sexed).

I still can't get over the absolute brass fucking neck of people who accuse others of "denying the existence of trans people" whilst simultaneously denying that there is a category of female people which can be defined according to objective criteria and for whom we need a word.

Nobody is denying the existence of trans people. If we thought they didn't exist we wouldn't care what toilets they were using.

People like Tandora are, however, denying that female people exist, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You were told this on this thread? Or is this an exaggeration of the posts to attempt to dismiss the fact that female people are highly likely to correctly detect a male person's sex with interaction with that person. Some female people will correctly sex a male person on sight. Even just from watching that person walk or move.

This is the type of dismissal that we see used quite regularly to dismiss female people's concerns about their single sex spaces. It usually is used in conjunction with the 'male people were always using female single sex spaces, you just didn't know that they were there', and 'you cannot police those spaces anyway, so why exclude a group of male people who want access'.

Of course, there are some female people who will not be able to correctly sex a male person who has presented themselves as being female. Often when people say 'women can always correctly sex male people', what they refer to is women collectively. For instance, there will be always one female person who can correctly sex a particular male person at some point.

Meaning, that there will be at least once during a lifetime where a male person has been correctly sexed by a female person while that male person has presented themselves as being female.

This attempt above of dismissing the ability of female people to correctly sex male people is a well tried tactic. It doesn't change the truth though. There is a high likelihood of a female person correctly sexing a male person with interaction. And it may be on first sight. Just because some female people cannot do this doesn't change that others will be highly likely to be able to do this.

Indeed MissScarlet. The 'denying the existence of trans people' hyperbole is simply emotionally manipulative. It is the use of catastrophising language to convince others.

Of course, once you see it, people rarely unsee it.

'Nobody is denying the existence of trans people. If we thought they didn't exist we wouldn't care what toilets they were using.'

This is far too logical. The incoherence of the arguments is remarkable.