Consquences of self-identification

[MrsKCastle]

Sorry if this has already been done. I've been doing a lot of thinking about current trans thinking in the media.

As far as I understand it, this is the predominant view:
Anyone can be man or woman, male, female or neither. It doesn't depend on your genes, appearance or potential ability to hear young. What's important is how you identify. We should always treat people as they identify, with regard to how we speak about and treat them, and what spaces/roles we allow them to access.

What I'm interested in, is how this self-identification will or could change society. I'd love to hear your thoughts as I think it will help me to get things straight in my head.

So far I'm thinking:
No more single-sex schools
No more single-sex hospital wards
No more single-sex clubs, whether that's Brownies or exclusive golf clubs
Anyone can apply for any scholarship or award, regardless of sex

What else?

I honestly don't understand why "I am a woman" is the magic entry phrase. Why not "I won't harm women"?

I mean I really don't get this. Doesn't the whole line of reasoning fall down as soon as we ask this question? Shouldn't that be the end of the argument?

I think very soon prisons will effectively be desegregated. And violent and sexual offenders will wreak havoc on incarcerated women. And it will be Maria Millers fault

I think the most violent offenders will be kept away from the general prison population. But I do think we will start to hear about women prisoners becoming pregnant while inside. Not necessarily from rape or coercion, many from consensual intercourse. But it will be interesting to see how that is dealt with.

There is a FTM pupil at my kids ( co-ed ) school

They use the individual toilet and indivual changing room for PE. Apparently there has been no pressure on the boys to budge up. None of the boys have been called transphobic for not being comfortable with a person with a male vulva and male breasts in their changing area.

Has the ftm pupil given any indication he wants to undress in front of boys? Have the boys refused to share?

I would assume he is the one who would be uncomfortable, not the boys.

I have no idea, lass, I don't know this pupil . It's all treated in a very low key way ( as it shoudl be ) and the other pupils don't have any issue with the current set up ( which is great ) .

I merely gave it as an example because things seem to be treated differently when it's men/ boys that have to budge up .

Women are called transphobic when they don't want a person with a penis in their changing room . They are told it's a female penis and they are bigots. That Transwomen are not sexually attracted to them and they have no right to their own feelings of embarrassment or fear . Even if a MtF person has an obvious erection , they are told that it's more embarrassing for that person than it is for them and they shoudl get it over it .

In the example I have in my kids school, I find it interesting that everyone on this thread has assumed that when the child is FTM, they don't want to share with other pupils.

BUT when the child is MtF, they do want to share and the other pupils are TERF bigots who won't allow it .

I wonder why that is . When I asked this on the thread, people told me it was about male violence . Then I was promptly told that although it WAS about violence and the people perpetuating this violence were male, their sex was irrelevant .

And I asked why, if this was the case, transactivists werent speaking out against male violence , as this seemed to be the key problem . But no one could tell me why that was.

So I find it very confusing .

Treatment for male perpetrators of sexual abuse and domestic violence would cease to be funded because (as we know from the recent case of the 60 year old transitioner) identifying as a woman means that programmes designed for male pattern abuse won't work anymore. Progress!

I merely gave it as an example because things seem to be treated differently when it's men/ boys that have to budge up

No you didn't merely give it as an example. You made up a situation - the boys refusing to "budge up" - that you now say you actually have no information on whether it's true or not. Had the boys refused there would have been a point to make- as they didn't it's at best pointless speculation on your part or an unwarranted slur about the boys.

No she didn't. No mention of refusing. No pressure to budge up, she said.

I can assure you that I didn't make any of it up.

I said, as Winchester woman pointed out , that the boys were NOT ASKED to budge up. No one called them names or said they were bigots.

You asked me what the individual pupil concerned wanted and I replied I did not know. Which is true . That's a confidential matter between them and their parents / the school .

I have NO IDEA whether they wanted to use the boys changing rooms but were scared to do so because of violence . It's other people on this thread who have said that might be the case . I assume they suggest this because other FTM people have reported such concerns .

And LOL at " unwarranted slur on the boys "

I said, as Winchester woman pointed out , that the boys were NOT ASKED to budge up. No one called them names or said they were bigots.

You cannot call someone names for not doing something they were not asked to do in the first place.

I'm not calling anyone names

You said:
None of the boys have been called transphobic for not being comfortable with a person with a male vulva and male breasts in their changing area .

which implied that they had been asked and refused on grounds of discomfort.

You are right, I can see how that could be read into that, it is indeed ambiguous .

Let me clarify - to the best of my knowledge, none of the boys were formally consulted . I suspect that had they been asked, some of them would have found it uncomfortable with the FTM pupil changing with them.

I also suspect that some parents woudl have objected, as the school currently provide changing families based on sex and not on gender. To start to seperate on the basis of gender instead would probably require a change of policy at local authority level .

It woudl generate a lot of controversy and publicly which wouldn't help the pupil concerned and their family .

IMHO the schoo have handled it well. people have been respectful of others feelings and views and the pupil has been able to get on with their education.

I find it an interesting example of who is asked to compromise when the reasonable wishes of different groups conflict.

No she didn't. No mention of refusing. No pressure to budge up, she said

The poster has now said she basically has no information whatsoever on what happened but previously , on the basis of nothing, decided to interpret this as the boys not having to "budge up"


The point is that the question doesn't arise - because a girl wouldn't want to be a lone girl in a male space like a lone boy would like to be in a female space. A lone boy would not be afraid in the way a lone girl would. The boys aren't threatened. They won't feel threatened if they go into female spaces, and they won't feel threatened by a girl in their space. The whole question is moot. The cases where a girl wants to go into a male space are vanishingly rare compared to the men wanting to enter female spaces. That's the point.

That's completely untrue. I said I knew nothing of the conversation between the school and the individual pupil . That doesn't mean I know nothing about anything , nor that I have made it up.

The boys were not asked to budge up. That's a fact. I note that and wonder why .

Lass you are being deliberately difficult and confrontational . You are clearly more interested in picking a fight than in debating the underlying issues . I have no interested in fighting so I'll leave you to it .

Sorry, that last post was directed at Lass and not at Winchester .

None of the boys have been called transphobic for not being comfortable with a person with a male vulva and male breasts in their changing area

Stop backtracking Kristina. You said the above. As Bumbledum pointed out the boys can hardly be called transphobic for not doing something they were never asked to consider in the first place.

There is a clear implication that they deserved to be called transphobic but have escaped censure because they are boys.

The whole question is moot

Yes it is but that is not how Kristina posited it in her original post.

The boys were not being called transphobic- why would they be? As far as she knows they were never presented with a situation which called for them to act one way or another.

I can see Kristina's point. None of it happened because the boys were not asked to adjust their behaviour in any way. Which is double standards.

'You’ve all heard of the overton window — the range of acceptable ideas, words, and thoughts in society. It’s the window that leftists try to narrow, and cultural libertarians try to expand. I posit that there is a second window — the underton window, shall we say, constituting the range of unacceptable ideas, words, and thoughts on society. As the overton window narrows, the underton window broadens. And when the underton window gets bigger than the overton window — well, it’s time for polite society to panic. Because when that happens, polite society starts to get outnumbered.'

Sorry to post this from a feminist hater, Milo, but it does speak to the trans culture fight.

None of it happened because the boys were not asked to adjust their behaviour in any way. Which is double standards

It would only be double standards if the ftm wanted to share, asked to share and the school refused to support the pupil in such a request.

Kristina has said she has no idea what the conversation was between the pupil and the school - only that the boys have not been asked to share.

You cannot make any assumptions about why the boys were not asked to share; far less that they are escaping censure for not sharing.

I can see Kristina's point. None of it happened because the boys were not asked to adjust their behaviour in any way. Which is double standards.

Yes this was how I read it too tbh. Boys weren't expected to adjust anything and as such (as the opportunity to refuse wasn't there) they were not accused of transphobia in the way girls are when they refuse or show concern.

Just to add, we have a 10-year old non-binary in the BBC magazine:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37383914

"I really want to use the boys' loos because it's more right than using the girls. I'm not allowed to and I think I should be able to."

Not at all clear to me why a non-binary female person would feel it is 'more right' to use the boys loos, but hey, after all, we all know male is the default human, and seems male is more default if you're non-binary too................

And according to this helpful BBC definition:
"Non-binary people are those who don't feel male or female. They may feel like both or like something in between. They may have a gender that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all."
I'm non-binary and always have been, because I've never felt female, and gender is a load of nonsense............................

"Then we did some research and we found the word is gender non-binary..." The internet has a lot to answer for! And girlhood (and boyhood) get narrower and narrower..................................