Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

[mirrorisnotmyfriend]

They come up with this.

First post - Why Transwomen Aren't Biologically Male.
www.facebook.com/everydayfeminism/

The comments are encouraging though, that is, the ones that haven't been deleted. Lots of people questioning and calling this out.

Doctors and scientists are afraid to say what they think, Bambambini It's only the odd one whose position - tenure and seniority - means they can say what they believe.

For the rest it's a scary climate. You can lose your job, wreck your career, for dissenting from the totally uncritical trans narrative. In some places just questioning whether a patient with serious MH issues is a suitable candidate for surgery is classed as conversion therapy, which is against the law, ffs.
.
There's a blog called Youth Trans Critical Professionals. They have to blog anonymously for fear of the consequences. It's a very weird situation.,

Just read the Women Analyzing Policy link already posted upthread:

womenanalysingpolicyonwomen.wordpress.com

One thing I am finding particularly alarming is that it seems to be saying that part-time cross-dressers would be able to demand access to female spaces--there is no requirement to "live as a woman" (whatever the hell that means) full-time.

This will certainly massively increase the number of men tempted to take advantage of such rules.

Part time cross dressers? I don't think they'd even have to go that far. Look at Danielle.

It might be a reference to people like Pips Bunce:

www.out-standing.org/newsroom/credit-suisse-lead-the-way-on-workplace-gender-fluidity-awareness/

'Gender fluidity' would be a non issue if we weren't bound by gender stereotypes. Its the conflation of gender with sex which is the problem. I would wish that everyone could 'present' however the heck they wanted (within whatever standards of neatness and decorum are apt) without discrimination. But that should not casually override biological sex. Sex is what matters and must take precedence for anything where biological differences are important- sport, health, reproduction (duh) etc.

What extra rights do the "gender fluid" require that wouldn't make a mockery of spaces either segregated by sex or gender?

'Gender neutral' is meaningless if you really think about it, and the opposite of what they're pushing for.

A toilet could have a sign up saying "All genders welcome" but still only allow one biological sex.

Or it could allow members of both sexes who identify as a limited range of genders. Which is what the transactivists want and would be sex neutral.

I was just reading a research paper. Its conclusions are:

"We consider the sex-specific demography of two of the largest migrations in recent European prehistory. Using genome-wide ancient genetic data from multiple Eurasian populations spanning the last 10,000 years, we find no evidence of sex-biased migrations from Anatolia, despite the shift to patrilocality associated with the spread of farming. In contrast, we infer a massive male-biased migration from the steppe during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age."

Genome-wide ancient genetic data is not a social construct. Sociological conclusions might be drawn from its mapping, but the sex-specific data used is just that - sex specific.

I can't help feeling very strongly that this is all a smokescreen for the further domination and oppression of women by middle aged, heterosexual men who take our gender and claim it as their own. We are allowed NOTHING of our own and this is not to be protected. If we object we are classed as bigots.

Also Ray Finch, the social media editor or EF is described as "they" not he or she. They have BAs in gender studies and therefore they reject gender totally! FFS

Ray would have done better writing in the first person. Her would sound more genuine and less like a pretentious twat.

And what happens if you are talking about two transwomen, both of whom use the pronoun they? How does anyone know which one you're referring to?

We finally have a UK specific petition regarding the Gender Identity Bill, it sets out very clearly and without hysterics the case for having the Bill amended and placed under deeper scrutiny to protect young children and young adults, please sign and share if you are in agreement: citizengo.org/en-gb/pc/41304-say-not-dangerous-gender-identity-bill?tc=fb&tcid=32808372

Signed and shared

RaisinsAndApple

But if you're talking about two people and you keep saying 'they' to refer to one of them, it makes no sense, because they means more than one. I've often read something where the person is referred to as they and I've had to go back to find out who else they are talking about. Of all the pronouns I think 'they' is the most inappropriate and confusing.

And it was me who is of the opinion that terf is losing its meaning. I'm not sure why you think that me saying transwomen are not women makes me an 'intolerant hater' though.

It's the very basis of my objection.

I absolutely think transwomen should not face any more discrimination than anyone else. That's why I think transgender should be a protected chacteristic, not that it should legally mean they can become a man or a woman.

The sort of discrimination a transwoman faces is because she is perceived as a man identifying as a woman. It is completely different to the discrimination that women face.

I'm on my phone could someone please put a clicky link on

TheHouse did you mean this link: citizengo.org/en-gb/pc/41304-say-not-dangerous-gender-identity-bill?tc=fb&tcid=32808372

raisins

Ok, yes that's clear now, thanks.

And yes others have been pointing out the flaw in that petition. I certainly don't want remove protected characteristics, I just don't want the one of women to be replaced.

And yet again, even as I write that, I can hardly believe it.

A previous poster has said that this reading on the 24th is by no means indicative of a change in the law. (i'm not familiar with the process of lawmaking so I was glad she said that).

I am hoping that the fact that as, even at this early stage, there is a lot of push back, it will be noticed and highlighted in the media. And maybe the entire debate can then get some oxygen flow and robust discussion.

I honestly think most people, however inclusive they feel, when fully apprised of the implications, will be against it.

Thanks SoulSearcher

Re. the conflation of sex and gender - I think that ship sailed when people were allowed to change the sex on their birth certificate. Seems such a blithe decision to allow that to happen. An amendment would make sense, but to be presented with a new birth certificate categorically stating that a transwoman was born female (or transman was born male) just flies in the face of logic, biology and truth

I had to turn off The Philospher's Arms on radio 4 today. Somehow they went from discussing whether a Jaffa Cake is a biscuit or a cake, to a male sounding person describing himself as non binary and that some days he feels like being Phil and some days like Pam (I can't actually remember the female name he used but you get the idea.) when he/she was asked how they decide what to be on a particular day, they just said it pretty much depended on how they woke up feeling. So, much the same as some days I wake up and want to wear a dress and other days jeans. As someone another thread said- aren't we just talking about personality now? If gender (and in the view of some TAs) sex, is just a social construct than don't you remain the same regardless of what clothes you wear. The switching off point came when a so called expert in genetics said that you could have just 1 gene deletion and believe you are one gender only to find during puberty that actually you're a different gender. I'm assuming she meant sex but at that point I was arguing with the radio again so I turned it off!

As far as I could tell the 'sex being a construct' argument was based around the fact that you can change your entire appearance, so who knows? And although you can't change your chromosomes (they neglected to mention reproductive organs) no one can see those. So that's that.

once again, entirely missing the small fact that me not being able to see someone's chromosomes doesn't magically change them to those of the opposite sex.