To be hurt and angry that DD told her prof her mum is a TERF and he sympathised

[Dahliadaily]

My DD is at a Russell group uni studying a masters following a 1st in humanities. I’m really proud of her obviously.
We were always really close. She cried for me throughout freshers’ week, relied on my tough love.

We differ respectfully on the trans issue. I am a feminist and a biology grad and believe in the reality of sex and the importance of single sex spaces, the rule of law.

We negotiate this ok and do keep talking. I’m sure that more unites us than separates us. We agree on prostitution for example. But not on the medicalisation of gender.

She is a lesbian. Has lots of gay non binary and trans friends. Her flatmate is a trans man. I’d never make a personal remark about any of them.

My other DD told me that uni DD has got close to a prof (male and gay - nothing sleazy) and told him I was a TERF. He responded “that must be really difficult for you”.

She’s an intelligent young woman, capable of forming her own views. But I can’t help being hurt by her comment and angry with the prof for siding with this idea that I’m difficult or even evil / unkind. It feels a bit like grooming.

It's the betrayal, I feel. It's one thing for you and your DD to disagree, family does this, but going outside family, to someone who isn't really a friend, is callous, IMO.

The prof probably loves to hate on middle aged women...he should have been more professional and stayed out of it.

I know what it is but can't remember the breakdown.

I object to the trans exclusionary part, the suggestion I want to exclude trans people from all social spheres and walks of life. I don't at all, I just want to exclude men from women's SSS. TIFs are of course welcome.

I'm not bothered about TIFs in men's SSS either because that's for men to sort out, and if those women want to put themselves at risk in men's spaces that's up to them.

The TE part is a deliberate misrepresentation. Possibly also an oversight because maybe whoever coined the term forgot that TIFs exist. Seems the TRAs often do, presumably on account of them being women.

Thas for the RF, the idea that the belief men can't be women is "radical" is bizarre.

It's nonsense conflating things that determine sex development with "defining masculinity".

@WeeGeeBored I wouldn’t if I were you. Large parts of this AI-generated slop is totally wrong 😆 There’s plenty of this half-digested faux-biology around on the internet, but that doesn’t make it correct.

@PigletIsWorried What is it about being bisexual that you find you have in common with men who like to wear women’s clothes? How are you suffering oppression for your sexuality, and how is that the same as not allowing biological men to use women’s facilities? Genuinely interested.

I’m bisexual. I don’t see it as remotely anything to do with men who desire to be the other sex.

“Intersectionality” has become a highly commercialised, very corporate way of thinking about “oppression”. It would be really interesting to hear what you understand it to mean, and why you think it is a good model for comparing sexuality to “gender identity”.

I think what @PumpkinSpiceAndEverythingNice is saying is that there is nuance here and it’s possible to hold multiple ideas about this simultaneously.

Obviously biological sex exists and most people fall into a clear binary of man or woman (I’m not sure about the biological classification of those with DSDs - happy to hear from a scientist on that one). Having said that, some people consider gender as separate to sex, and I think there
will be more to come on that in terms of large-scale research in the future; that’s not to say I could predict the findings or outcomes of that, but I think there are things we don’t yet fully understand about the experience of those who experience misalignment between gender and sex. Those people exist and have existed for centuries in terms of historical record (and of course likely for much longer). It would be helpful to understand more about the root and cause of such misalignment beyond any who may (and I use ‘may’ with caution) have been led down that route by social media.

Some people also don’t take an absolute line in terms of exclusion from single sex spaces and activities based on sex, based on personal views and experiences. It’s possible to fully grasp the concept of biological sex (it’s not difficult) while also having nuanced or less certain views on the exclusion of trans women from some or all of the above. For example, lots of people whose views are more nuanced are weighing various things in their thinking about level of threat versus the importance of inclusion. An example might be someone believing that trans women should be excluded from women’s prisons because, as convicted criminals first and trans women second, they’re not representative of the population in that they’re more likely to engage in criminal behaviour and be unsafe. That same person may feel (as the poster you’re responding to does, I think) that the same level of threat does not exist around use of toilets at a general population level. These are just examples.

One thing I see on Mumsnet (and I think is reflected on some social media although I don’t really engage in it beyond this site) is how polarised the debate has become. The terms ‘TERF’ and ‘TRA’ exemplify this polarisation and lead to people adopting more entrenched positions than they otherwise might in response to perceived or actual criticism and threat. So I think it’s really important that we are prepared to listen to and accept the nuances and shades of grey that exist in others’ views.

Every mammal is male or female.

Men and women with Chromosonal Disorders of Sexual Development
are sick and tired of gender grifters trying to drag their health issues
into identity rubbish

The OP's DD's lecturer made a non commital comment.
They should really have been the adult in the room
but hey ho

It's very difficult nowadays to be at university and have a social life while openly maintaining a gender-critical position. Human beings are very good at persuading ourselves that we actually do believe the things it's convenient for us to believe.

There is not nuance when it comes to changing sex. It is impossible.

There is absolutely zero evidence that there is any neurological or hormonal 'cause' here. Nor would it particularly matter as these men would still be a subset of biological men, not women.

It is very important to respect the biological facts of the matter and the scientific method.

I think there are things we don’t yet fully understand about the experience of those who experience misalignment between gender and sex. Those people exist and have existed for centuries in terms of historical record (and of course likely for much longer). It would be helpful to understand more about the root and cause of such misalignment beyond any who may (and I use ‘may’ with caution) have been led down that route by social media.

@UnintentionalArcher I’m a historian, and this just simply isn’t true. It’s for the most part either faux history made up by recent gender ideologues, or it’s a misinterpretation of historical evidence. There are some records of crossdressing individuals throughout written history, but these were almost all gay men and women and had no concept of the contemporary notion of “trans”.

A very large amount of the history of lesbian, bisexual and gay people has recently been co-opted by enthusiasts for the idea of trans rights, but there is almost no historical evidence for “trans” as an idea or experience before the very late 19th and early 20thc century (and even then “gender” was understood as part of sexuality, not something on its own that could be misaligned with anything). In the early twentieth century “inversion theory” (the notion that someone’s bodily sex and their ideal sex were “misaligned”) was considered the reason why some people were same-sex attracted, but not that they had a “gender”, or that they were “trans” in the current sense of the word.

I’m a university lecturer and a TERF and I’ve voted YABU. It’s the context which makes the difference. Your Dd has a different viewpoint from you, I’d assume your DD’s prof was aware of her viewpoints when having this conversation.

So yes, it’s an emotive topic, it could well be difficult for someone in a family unit to have a different viewpoint. You are assuming the prof thinks you’re unkind but from you’ve written he didn’t actually say that.

Everyone's gonna have their own views on the TERF thing but that isn't what the thread is about really.

DD didn't treat you unkindly, she made a comment about how your views are difficult for her to understand - in the same way hers must be a bit difficult for you to understand. To call the professors response akin to grooming was a serious overreaction.

You can love and respect someone dearly and still not fully understand their POV on certain topics or decisions that they've made. I go to therapy once a month, mostly to discuss my Dad but naturally my Mom does get brought up - mostly in a positive light but then we do discuss decisions she made etc. that I struggled to understand. In fact it made me look at her thought process in a different light and I feel more understanding of her as a result.

As others have said, your other DD shouldn't have stirred the pot and it sounds like you both have the same opinions on the matter so she probably mentioned it to you for 'brownie points' like another PP. I wouldn't even bring it up with your DD, it wasn't a conversation you were supposed to be party to and she didn't discuss you negatively. She just told a professor you disagreed with her views and he acknowledged that must be difficult.

I don't debate with TERFs I'm not related to. There is nothing - literally nothing - I could say which you would accept, and it would take a lot of time and energy that this ADHD mother of multiple children and pets does not have for a bad faith internet stranger. If you're honest you can admit to yourself at least that you want me to engage purely so you can argue. Well, you don't need me for that! You can share whatever views you like without needing me involved at all.

I was at university more than a decade ago.

There is ONE acronym in there - TERF. Where are the others?

Indeed it is not the end of the story. I'm proud of my mum for her growth as a human in this area but she was terribly emotionally (and sometimes physically) abusive while I was growing up and takes no responsibility and proffers no apology for that. We'll never be close as a result. I love her but I'm also terrified of her and I keep her at multiple arms lengths.

If you're honest with yourself you will admit that you cannot form a coherent response to @thecatfromneptune 's very straightforward queries.

No, they've just got the sense to know it's pointless trying to engage with people like yourself and can't be arsed.

That's what you tell yourselves, and truly I don't care what you think

Well, DD is one as well.
So that makes TWO

Acronyms :
RG
= Russell Group
= self selecting group of UK Universities whose vice chancellors met in the Russell Hotel in the early 1990s to discuss research funding
= nothing to do with academic excellence or undergranduate teaching

TERF
= an insult aimed at women who defend the right for single sex spaces and services, appropriated as a rallying call by the women themselves
= Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist
= Tired of Explaining Reality to Fuckwits
= Telling Everybody Real Facts

Par for the course. Apparently my mere question was “seeking to define” that poster’s position and as such bad faith. I guess I’m intrigued why people adopt an absurd worldview all of a sudden. If that’s bad faith, hey ho, but I never said I was going to agree.

What the hell has Russell Group got to do with it. Would it be better if it was a post92? Or do you think RG lecturers should right wing?

I agree!