Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

[dorade]

What hope is there when respected scientific organisations uncritically adopt phrases like "sex assigned at birth" and use "two spirit" people as evidence for the need to mutilated bodies to a facsimile of the other sex?

Report here

Barrack's challenge about the definition of legal terms is vital to the preservation of women's rights.

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

I don't mean some vague "words mean something and without them how will we identify the oppression of women as a class?" - because whilst that's all well and good I can't picture the real world scenario that will be made impossible; be it in law or whatever.

I can see we might have to adjust our use of language in order to convey our intended meaning, but even the clearest wordings are ambiguous and rely on interpretation; I find myself arguing the toss over incredibly carefully worded contracts at work all the time!

Are there any examples anyone could give please?

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

If you don't see why it's a bad idea to write laws about something the law can't define, Rat, I really can't help you. It's not rocket science. Try reading Debbie Hayton's article from yesterday, where Debbie makes exactly this point.

I dunno, I'm finding drunk Lang quite entertaining! And you manage to do it in comments of less than 1000 words too.

Well, I trundled over to the local pub for a couple of hours, got more than three sheets to the wind, and exhibited my manly side as I bayed for blood watching Anthony Joshua hit someone. (I shouldn't be allowed to watch boxing. It's my Achilles heel.)

And now I've got a raging hangover.

AngryAttackKittens
Remember that old Maya Angelou quote about listening when people tell you who they are? JayCee has told us who they are multiple times. It's a shame that only a handful of people are able to get past their female socialization enough to listen and acknowledge what they're hearing.

Some of us are new to these boards and have only recently started thinking about these issues. Yes, I am a product of female socialisation. Yes, I tend to take people at face value. That probably makes me naive. You do want others to see the problems being discussed here don't you? And get on board with trying to change things? Because calling others shameful for not seeing what they have not seen the "multiple times" you have is likely to exclude exactly those you need to convince. OK, you don't need to be a fluffy tolerant submissive sop, but do you really want to drive potential allies away? I don't know Jaycee or you, but found their posts and the ones combatting them enlightening. Or do you want us to get with the #nodebate programme?

flowers

She didn't call you (or others) shameful, she said it's a shame about female socialisation. Not the same thing. She's being blunt, not attacking you (or others).

Brief JC history so you understand where some of us are coming from: appears... types many long posts about self... gets challenged about self-ID and flounces off... reappears... types many long posts about self which suddenly incorporate the anti-self-ID stance that caused the first flounce off... gets challenged again a few days later and flounces off again... reappears... types many long posts about self... gets outed as using MN interactions to report back to a TRA board co-ordinating anti-feminist tactics so flounces off again... reappears... types many long posts about self... gets challenged on deflecting from potentially useful discussion points... threatens to flounce off again....

Rinse and repeat.

The problem, flowers, is that you've been trying to get those of us who have seen it before to perform female socialization and gently nurture the person whose bollocks we've already seen through. Some of us are not going to do that.

Basically a lot of us have been at this for years and have already decided that appeasement and careful use of language designed not to be too direct is not the most effectiv way to go. You can go that way, if you like, but you can't make others do the same.

flowersonthepiano
The phrase used was 'it's a shame'. That doesn't mean anyone or anything is 'shameful', it's just an expression of disappointment. All I get from Jaycee's posts is someone who likes to talk about herself a lot - but I'm not sure if that is what AngryAttackKittens meant. If you are finding the discussion useful for understanding the issues, that's great. Personally I barely skim Jaycee's posts now, as she seems to be repeating herself a lot, and I think I could write her life story myself from what she's written (and I'd use fewer words). She also never answers a straightforward question like 'what do you mean by gender?'

At this point I'm mostly wishing there was a "hide commenter" button so I didn't have to scroll through another 5000 words of the same self-focused waffling from JayCee. I resent being used as a source of narcissistic supply and that's why I stopped responding to him.

At this point I'm mostly wishing there was a "hide commenter" button so I didn't have to scroll through another 5000 words of the same self-focused waffling from JayCee. I resent being used as a source of narcissistic supply and that's why I stopped responding to him.

I stopped responding when the original flounce off resulted in a return with a repurposed set of arguments that just so happened to be exactly the arguments used against JC that had made JC flounce off in the first place. Was entirely unsurprised by the subsequent outing about the TRA board.

Responded here because I thought Barracker was making an extremely vital point and I was infuriated by the thousands of words from JC desperately trying to deflect from that extremely vital point so that it would get dropped.

Unsurprisingly, not allowing the point to be dropped triggered a narcissistic rage, another flounce, another return, and more threatened flounces, along with something about one-eyed because they always, always, always give themselves away by being unable to resist a personal appearance insult.

JC is ruthlessly taking advantage of women's good natures and it's both emblematic of the way TRAs relate to women overall and frustrating to watch. Someone probably does need to respond each time just so he doesn't succeed in diverting the discussion away from important questions but I feel like nobody should have to deal with this bollocks all the time. Maybe we can work out a rota.

The problem, flowers, is that you've been trying to get those of us who have seen it before to perform female socialization and gently nurture the person whose bollocks we've already seen through.

I don't try to get anyone to do anything other than acknowledge that not everyone is in with the in crowd.

It's useful to know that you have found JayCee to be a pita. But you shouldn't assume everyone else has seen the previous performances and are pandering. I wasn't. I try to listen to all sides of arguments and retain and open mind. That doesn't mean I agree with everyone to be nice. It just means I like to think about things from different perspectives.

If you don't see why it's a bad idea to write laws about something the law can't define, Rat, I really can't help you. It's not rocket science.

Well if you can't express what you're trying to say Lang then you're right, you can't help me.

I have a fair amount to do with legal writings as a matter of fact. It's commonly accepted that words have nuanced meanings depending on the context and the audience. It's why things like the exact document like the one that sparked this thread have their own set of definitions at the end.

But no, you are not the poster to help me.

@flowersonthepiano Jaycee felt compelled to join this debate, both on MN and on trans sites, as someone who's life has benefited from both the advances gained by trans campaigners and the fair and measured inclusivity of women.

Every post she's written has been personal and heartfelt, digging up old ground that I can only has been very painful for her, and the sole purpose of her posts has been an effort to foster some middle ground between the two groups to whom she seems to feel she owes something to.

But that's just my take on it, for balance.

It's why things like the exact document like the one that sparked this thread have their own set of definitions at the end.
Except they don't define gender.

Rat - that was my take as well. It's probably not good for Jaycee to keep going over this stuff. Like you, didn't know about the constant flouncing- but am broadly sympathetic towards someone who has kept their head down for four decades and then finds themselves in this shit storm, entirely orchestrated by the trans lobby.

borntobequiet
But JC does write an awful lot of words about JC's life story, whilst avoiding answering specific questions like what do you mean by gender? Constant derailment of the subject being discussed is unlikely to make people sympathetic.

That's probably a personal pathology combined with an excusable inability to define gender - who can? There are plenty of ideas we recognise but can't define; beauty, freedom, sadness (unless others are far better at definitions than I am). They all have dictionary definitions but are ultimately interpreted differently by different people.
I understand that sex is binary and whatever gender is is largely constructed and is based on/recognised by observable behaviours. However some of these behaviours may be innate (driven at least in part by biology) and others entirely constructed by society.
As an aside, I was put off feminism in the 70s/80s/90s by a particular type of feminism that did reject biology on the grounds that it acknowledged that women were in some way weaker than and inferior to men. At least some of our present difficulties may trace back to this. I've only recently engaged again.

I really don’t believe that Males will be having womb transplants, let alone ovary transplants ‘any day now’ 🙄
It’s still experimental in actual Women, 12 live births in 10 years I believe, the Montreal protocols don’t allow for Male bodies to be used, I’ve researched the surgery and outcomes thoroughly, a Woman who has received a donated womb has to have her own working ovaries as IVF is >30% effective. She has to menstruate for 6+ months to show everything is working.
There is a UK charity wanting to research and carry out womb transplants , they need half a million pounds to get started, they have only raised £40k in 18 months.
Even if they could get a womb to function in a Man ( god knows how) no way would Ethics commitees allow experiments on a growing foetus when fertilised ova have to be destroyed after 10 days of cell division.
Male bodies have not evolved to sustain pregnancy, no matter how many deluded Men say they can.

I have a fair amount to do with legal writings as a matter of fact. It's commonly accepted that words have nuanced meanings depending on the context and the audience.

But of course you do, dear. I'm sure your contribution to jurisprudence is unparalleled. Nuance has nothing to do with legislating to either protect or criminalise something which the legislation does not define. We all understand that law has word and spirit. The interpretation of which is what judges are for. This does not mean that good law is bereft of meaningful definitions. That's bad law.

As you, experienced in legal writings as you are, perfectly well know.

Jaycee felt compelled to join this debate, both on MN and on trans sites, as someone who's life has benefited from both the advances gained by trans campaigners and the fair and measured inclusivity of women

Oh, right. It isn't so Jaycee can go back to Jaycee's TRA board and mock the nice MNers and slag off the mean ones? Good to know.

“But JC does write an awful lot of words about JC's life story, whilst avoiding answering specific questions like what do you mean by gender? “

I am really interested in Jaycee’s life story.

I am also really interested in the radical feminist perspective though I am usually a bit like this

I am becoming increasingly fascinated that a group of women exist who do not care whether I like them or not. It is eye opening.

I have learnt from this board that I’ve been socialised to be needy about being liked.

I am becoming increasingly fascinated that a group of women exist who do not care whether I like them or not. It is eye opening.

I have learnt from this board that I’ve been socialised to be needy about being liked.

The DH is reading over my shoulder and just burst out laughing. This is not an affliction you suffer from, mate, is it? I elbowed him in the stomach and told him I only married him out of pity. He's now threatening to steal my Easter egg. It's Lindt. There may be blood.

There's room for us all, theoldruggedcross, there's room for us all.

That's probably a personal pathology combined with an excusable inability to define gender - who can?
But Jaycee's entire life has been based around the idea of gender identity. If someone is undergoing gender transition, they need a definition of gender identity, otherwise what are they transitioning from or to?

Barrack's challenge about the definition of legal terms is vital to the preservation of women's rights.

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

I don't mean some vague "words mean something and without them how will we identify the oppression of women as a class?" - because whilst that's all well and good I can't picture the real world scenario that will be made impossible; be it in law or whatever.

I can see we might have to adjust our use of language in order to convey our intended meaning, but even the clearest wordings are ambiguous and rely on interpretation; I find myself arguing the toss over incredibly carefully worded contracts at work all the time!

Are there any examples anyone could give please?

It's a really good question, because it can be hard to visualise in a real world scenario.

Employment and Pay:
Imagine 100 'women'
They are 50% XX and 50% XY , but gender identity is a protected category, so they are all legally women.
On paper there is ZERO difference between the women.
Employers, though, consistently employ primarily from one group.
and pay that group more too.
It is also completely apparent in real life observations which group may need maternity leave, and which won't. But on paper there is no record of how this is known.
How do the disadvantaged group a. demonstrate that they are being discriminated against and b. address it?

Representation:
XX: XY in the general population is 50:50
The entitlement of equal representation which was once based on sex, is now based on 'gender'
'Men':'women' reaches 50:50
But XX:XY is 25:75
We know this because we have eyes, but on paper and in the law 'women' are equally represented. There is no recourse for XX to address this because IN LAW we are not recognised as a group.

You can think of ANY situation where people of one sex, the female sex, might either be subject to unfair treatment on account of their SEX, or WANT different treatment for reasons of healthcare, dignity or privacy or to address existing inequalities.

And you will be able to demonstrate how gender overwrites the ability to do this.

Sex and gender are in direct opposition.
Wherever you make things fair for a sex, you will make things 'unfair' for those who advocate gender.
Wherever you make things fair for 'gender', you disadvantage an entire sex.

They can't co-exist.

theoldruggedcross
I initially read Jaycee's posts with interest, until I realised that the same information was being regurgitated again and again. From what I understand, Jaycee has/had a male partner* and transitioned about 45 years ago, so was probably growing up at a time when homosexuality was illegal. Jaycee was subjected to appalling gay conversion therapy. It is not clear to me (even after a million posts) whether Jaycee's transition was triggered by being gay at a time when being gay was illegal (and still considered fairly unacceptable even after the law was changed), or by true dysphoria. I do have a lot of sympathy for people of earlier generations who were faced with a lot of prejudice just for being gay - and this still happens in many countries, like Iran for example, where being trans is acceptable, but being gay is illegal.

This is one reason why I think it is important to explore why someone is presenting to a doctor with self-diagnosed gender dysphoria. If the reasons are not properly explored, then transitioning could in itself become a kind of gay conversion therapy.

*I have assumed Jaycee has a male partner from this comment earlier in the thread 'I accepted the fact that it meant I could never marry my partner.' I'm sure Jaycee will be along to tell me (at great length) if I have got that wrong.

Fabulous explanation BarrackerBarmer
That’s exactly the heart of the self id argument.