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?

And excuse me if you think I have a 'deep-rooted hatred of men'. You make so many arrogant assumptions. It's astonishing, absolutely astonishing.

Actually I gave ground. I opened up discussion on self identification. I accepted that we want some form of control over certain spaces, particularly areas where women are more naked and/or vulnerable.

You're the ones not budging on the self entitled 'adult human female' nonsense and refusing to accept any research that proves evidence of gender identity.

One of us is going to be on the wrong side of history.

ATM Asking for improvements on reporting and communication around sexual offences

Do you think that crimes committed by transwomen should be reported as such and not as committed by women?
Do you think that the first woman soldier on the frontline ought to have been accurately reported as being a self-identifying transwoman?
Do you recognise that the media is kowtowing to the trans narrative by continually omitting any mention of trans individuals' trans status? If so, why do you think this is?
Can you even begin to pretend to understand why women object to being marginalised within the very definition of woman?
These are just some of the consequences of self-identification. (FYI that's the actual title of this thread)

Here's what you could be doing instead:

• listen to what the intelligent women on this forum are telling you
• empathise; truly try to put yourself in these women's metaphorical shoes
• quit with the meandering & patronising analogy stop the accusatory little digs "you probably don't want to because the campaign was started by someone that identifies as non-binary.." "were any of you standing outside Parliament chanting for better sex education this year?"*
• just answer some of the questions without these lectures peppered with not-really-very-humorous little asides.

PS Lots and lots of people (even women!) already know that shark attacks are very, very rare, overblown by the media (though arguably not so much anymore) and make up a tiny percentage of the human fatalities caused by animals. This just shrieks of (irrelevant) mansplaining.

I think you're meant to save a mic drop for the conclusion of a particularly impressive performance. This wasn't it.

I don't have a deep rooted hatred of men!

'Self-entitled'? Are you out of your fucking mind? Women are entitled to womanhood. Men, whatever their identities, are not.

self entitled 'adult human female' nonsense

And you think we can work together when you say this?

And you did not give ground, because it was not yours to give

You're the ones not budging on the self entitled 'adult human female' nonsense and refusing to accept any research that proves evidence of gender identity.

How is this nonsense though? Sex segregated areas are separated on sex, and for biological reasons.

I am actually quite annoyed that you are seeing me as refusing to give ground. I have given you my opinions on pretty much everything you have said. Attempted to think things through with a 'different' mindset to my own. Hell..at one stage I was imagining myself in a mans body to try and think things through the 'trans' way (not sure if that was on this thread or another though)

If your aim was to get us to discount biology and the reason we need sex (not gender) segregation then of course it was doomed to fail.

Actually I gave ground. I opened up discussion on self identification. I accepted that we want some form of control over certain spaces, particularly areas where women are more naked and/or vulnerable. This is all well and good, but there is NO way to control anything with self identification. So again, we are left with the option of all or nothing. I don't understand the anger with women over this issue...as you say transwomen have been using our spaces for years. This seemed to work fine. The anger should be directed at those who are actually causing this friction over the matter now, those who pretty much forced out hands in taking a black or white side...the TAs who are pushing for self-identification and such.

"'adult human female' nonsense"

Um... that is the dictionary definition of the word "woman"

I thought you liked dictionary definitions. You certainly quoted quite a few on this thread.

those who pretty much forced out = those who pretty much forced OUR

You're the ones not budging on the self entitled 'adult human female' nonsense and refusing to accept any research that proves evidence of gender identity. One of us is going to be on the wrong side of history.

are trying to be persuasive ?

What the fuck are we up against. Never in all my born days.

Do you think that crimes committed by transwomen should be reported as such and not as committed by women?

If the person's trans status is relevant to the crime, yes. If it's irrelevant to the crime no.

A news source saying 'trans woman' around a person with a GRC is breaking the law in this country as they are disclosing a protected characteristic (I know you don't want to hear that, but it is the law).

Do you think that the first woman soldier on the frontline ought to have been accurately reported as being a self-identifying transwoman?

I don't know if she had a GRC or not. So I can't comment either way.

Do you recognise that the media is kowtowing to the trans narrative by continually omitting any mention of trans individuals' trans status? If so, why do you think this is?

See GRC. They can't because a GRC gives you legal protection of your trans status. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, someone with a GRC is female (or male, if a trans man). Birth certificate, passport, driving license, all other records including NHS records. It's actually illegal to have their old details anywhere without adequate reason under a combination of the Data Protection Act and Gender Recognition Act.

Can you even begin to pretend to understand why women object to being marginalised within the very definition of woman?

Yes, I can understand this. I didn't make those rules. A significant portion of trans women want the protection of the GRC so they can assume a new gender and get on with their lives and forget about the part where they were identified as the wrong gender. You find this hard to accept, I fully appreciate that. For those people it is life protecting. They are the ones that pose no threat to you whatsoever - they will pass completely in public, probably will have lower surgery and carry on their lives trying to forget the horrors of being born in the wrong body. They are the chalk compared to the cheese of the weirdo's you love finding on Reddit.

I don't have enough passing privilege (despite being told that I do by a few people) to ever want this and I'm actually proud that I am a trans woman and am happy with that label. Even if I did get a GRC (no idea whether I want to - the primary motivator right now is not ending up in a male prison but I prefer to just avoid breaking the law to prevent that happening) I'd still be calling myself a trans woman.

Every single trans person's journey and choices are different.

I never said deep rooted hatred of men.

See what I mean about quoting what I said back at me?

I said 'men's right activists...deep rooted hatred of them'

Or are you telling me you all love Men's Rights Activists?!?

You're a men's rights activist. You're arguing for the right of men to take rights away from women.

And I think I'm permitted a few digs when I have to put up with still being called MtT (despite asking politely for other terms), being horribly misgendered and attacked by various people on this forum.

I haven't just screamed 'terf' and rage quit by repeating 'trans women are women' a zillion times.

Most of you are being very respectful and engaging in polite dialogue - thanks again for that. Those that aren't I'm mostly ignoring.

Wow, that was low. Misgendered, put in the MRA box and trans denial in one go.

adds MrsBruceBogtrotter to the ignore list

Misgendered, sure. Not missexed.

I don't know if she had a GRC or not. So I can't comment either way.

They did not. They were discovered 'crossdressing' by a friend and changed their name to reflect this and are now claiming the glory for being the first 'woman' on the frontline, despite no women being able to be on the frontline for another year or so due to the training involved. And despite going through their training as a bloke. And getting their job as a bloke.

The only 'news' in that case was person comes out as crossdresser and retains previously held position.

@WankingMonkey

Nope, half the reason I'm still here is because you are actually engaging and listening. Plus you are treating me with a massive amount of respect and hopefully can see I'm returning that favor.

I should probably clarify that 'adult human female' nonsense doesn't mean that definition. It means that sentence has just been quoted at me so many times now it's lost any meaning. Like when you repeat a word over and over again.

I don't need to be told what the dictionary definition of a woman is. I'm allegedly intelligent.

Plus we were having a decent conversation around gender (and I wasn't trying to trick you either - your viewpoint isn't that far away from mine actually).

Hmm...the frontline soldier thing is annoying then. I'll have to go read up on that.

I do know a few trans girls in the military who are quite high profile so I'm surprised this wasn't handled better.

Ignoring until you can make a dig?

I don't have a deep hatred of MRAs either - I'll fight them though, as I fight people like you, who try to disguise your true motives by pretending we are 'all women together'.

NOPE

Looks like she just started the process. So 'female' might be a smidgen offensive to some of you right now.

I feel they should have reported that better (although they did mention Captain Winterbourne but didn't get a quote from her in the Sun article I just read).

"You're a men's rights activist. You're arguing for the right of men to take rights away from women."

Yes this is exactly what this ideology is all about.

I do know a few trans girls in the military who are quite high profile so I'm surprised this wasn't handled better.

This was another issue with the whole fanfare about it. This person was not even the first transwoman on the frontline. So to say woman in any sense, regardless how you define 'woman'...it was offensive to both women and transwomen to suggest this person was a first of any kind. But the main point was...biological women have only just gained the rights to do that job, and cannot do so yet due to training and such, though in order to get the position. So even if you say woman/transwoman are the same thing, it is vastly disrespectful of any transperson to claim the 'first woman' label whilst women are still not in the position to hold the position themselves yet.

WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Do you see that? Did you read that? Well that told you.