Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

Actually I think the biggest thing about autism can be struggling in social relationships

You can’t generalise like that about a spectrum condition that presents myriad ways.

It may well be that social relationships are a big challenge to your partner, but that’s not true of everyone on the spectrum.

"Fine by me. That was working fine until the calls for self-ID started."

Self-ID is massively sensible but that's for another time

Actually I think the biggest thing about autism can be struggling in social relationships

And your point is?

That's completely inconsistent with your last post differentiating between gender & sex.

Jeez. Thought we were getting somewhere.

Self-ID is massively sensible but that's for another time

Aww, come on. Just as you making some sense!

Make one concession and the push for more immediately begins...

Men who seek to call themselves women are still men. The End.

And women do not want penises in women's single-sex spaces. We do not consent. The End.

I've been out all evening and I'm disgusted that the Sparticus thread has been deleted.

I believe and know as a scientific fact that a person born with XY chromosomes and a penis and testicles is a boy, and will grow up to be a man. I refuse to accept his say-so that he's now a woman and can enter women's spaces.

I am for women and girls. I support their dignity, privacy and I reject any man/male who wants to invade their spaces, whether it be prisons, refuges or sports.

If Mumsnet wants to erase gender critical women and force us all to lie they should say so. Because we will never accept that a human being can change sex. Or that a man can become a woman. Or that a man who thinks he's a woman is ever entitled to erase women's rights;

I'm actually trying to unpick it.

If someone self ids as trans, Gib thinks that it's misgendering if others do not accept their chosen gender.

But if they subsequently obtain a GRC, with the minor gatekeeping requirements, they magically & in defiance of all available science, also change sex.

At this point any sceptics aren't misgendering that person, they are mis-sexing them.

This is clearly mildly bonkers.

However, it draws precisely the demarcation between 'self ids into chosen gender' & 'has gone through a gatekeeping process' which the same poster is loudly proclaiming to be not only unnecessary but also fundamentally transphobia.

Make one concession and the push for more immediately begins...

I guess the decision is whether to fight a battle you won't win to exclude all trans men and trans women from male and female spaces, or work with trans men and women as allies on the condition both sides work to exclude the far bigger parts of the trans umbrella which make most women uncomfortable.

Personally I think it is in women's interests to say trans women are women but not other trans people. I know most here disagree but better, I suggest, to concede the point re trans women with grace to secure the moral high ground.

Biological and legal sex can be different.

I cannot see someones legal sex. I legally, can not ask for proof of it.

Nor do I care, as legal sex is rather irrelevant.

What matters is biological sex. When I see a man, it doesnt matter how his hair is, or how he is dressed. How much cosmetic surgery he has had.

It is still a man. I can not believe that is a woman, because its simply not true.

Gibberty, are you really starting to realise?! Are you admitting that AGP is actually a reality?! Hooray, have a !

Gibberty I do not want the moral high ground. I want spaces that are safe for me, and my daughters. Fpr all women.

I dont wish to exclude any biological female, regardless of their gender identity, or lack of.

Just to exclude males. Regardless of their gender.

But if they subsequently obtain a GRC, with the minor gatekeeping requirements, they magically & in defiance of all available science, also change sex

It isn't counter to science once you realise that sex, like gender, is a social construct. People aren't born into a sex - they are assigned one. For most people the assignment isn't remotely contentious but for a small part of the population, the assignment turns out to be wrong and is corrected. At present that is working out at about 0.01% of the population. That's not a bad error rate.

It isn't counter to science once you realise that sex, like gender, is a social construct. People aren't born into a sex - they are assigned one.

Face palm.

Gib my darling, you are quite, quite mad.

Sex is not assigned.

Sex is noted. Its recognised. We visibly see it.

Gibberty, are you really starting to realise?! Are you admitting that AGP is actually a reality?!

Not AGP, no but transvestites are very different and personally I don't want to share single sex spaces with most of them.

..sex, like gender, is a social construct... Total and utter bollocks..Not factual. Shite.

Sex is a physical reality. A woman is a physical reality that is not a man.

Personally I think it is in women's interests to say trans women are women but not other trans people. I know most here disagree but better, I suggest, to concede the point re trans women with grace to secure the moral high ground.

I don't believe that to be in women's interests at all. Why would anyone pretend that they do just because you want them to?

"Sex is noted. Its recognised. We visibly see it."

That's obviously wrong. Take a trivial example. If we assign a baby as female that is on the basis of the vulva we see. We don't see a womb - we guess it is there. We don't see testicles - we assume there aren't un-descended testicles. We see only a little bit of sex when we assign it. We certainly don't see genetics or brain structure.

We assign sex based on a few clues only. Those clues are pretty damn reliable but it isn't 100%. What we keep talking about is that fraction of 1% where the obvious clues mislead.

There's also a pretty large gap between "self ID is sensible" and wanting to be able to exclude transvestites, who will use self ID to include themselves regardless of how uncomfortable it makes everyone else.

Gib in the 0.3% where the sex we observe is not the chromosomal sex, we call that intersex.

Intersex is not trans.
You know this. We know this.
Who do you think youre fooling?

I'm curious to see whether the blunt "this is total bollocks" type comments are deleted. Are women here still allowed to point out that something someone has said is utterly out of touch with reality? Even if doing so upsets a trans activist?

Put it another way, can someone please explain to me why GC women believe that the sex on every birth certificate is right? Being 100% right isn't very likely is it? And what should we do with the cases where we get it wrong (even if we can't yet agree which those cases are)?