#notalltranswomen

[BadasIwannaB]

An argument people often make when women voice their concerns about women only spaces:

‘Well hang on a second, I know quite a few trans women and they are just considerate nice people who just want to get on with their lives etc.’

Why can’t people see that this is spectacularly missing the point in just the same way as arguing ‘well NOT ALL MEN are [rapists/sexual harassers/misogynists/a danger to women]’?

I mean, I’m friends with a lot of men - they aren’t all bad. I’m even in an intimate relationship with one. But would that be a legit rebuttal to the arguments that women should have protected spaces without men? Clearly not! I’m not insulting my (or your) friends who are men, or implying men are all rapists etc. by agreeing that women should have protected spaces without men in them.

Similarly, then, why think that those who argue that these protected spaces should not be available to trans women must be assuming that all trans women are rapists/sexual harrassers etc., and must be saying something that’s terribly insulting to their (or your) friends who are trans women?

I am interested in you idea though - but I wonder if it will only end up in the doldrums of the mind/body problem:

If 'mind' and 'body' are separate things, then how do they interact?

You'll have the 3 camps: 1) Idealists saying that everthing is just mind and ideas and material reality doesn't exists. 2) Interactionists endlessly tying themselves in knots coming up with failed attempts to resolve the problem based on flawed logic and 3) Materialists saying that we are our body and our mind is physical.

I want out of this rabbit hole. I am a Materialist.

I mean the conflict arises because sex/gender is one thing. No one is stating thats its two things.

Feminists are saying it is two things.
Sexual dimorphism is a biological reality that does not care if you believe in it or not.
Gender performance is a means of signalling compliance with the social hierarchy which performance details vary from one culture to another. People may or may not signal compliance as they choose.

I prefer the tactic of insisting people clarify what they mean when they say 'gender'. If they mean 'sex' I can say "then use the word sex".

I think campaigning to say sex is a social construct is an own goal. Only lunatics on the far side of Loonyville would ever think something other than "fuck off and don't be ridiculous" when confronted with it.

Gender is rather obviously a euphemism for personality.

As it is currently being used by genderists, I mean.

I find it acceptable to say that 'gender identity' is a legitimate belief. But I draw the line at saying it tells us something about material reality.

For my money, you are all spending too much time trying to get sense out of Snappity, who has demonstrated in this, and other threads, a total disrespect for women. I'm too lazy and too angry to deal with it. But thank you, those warriors who are plugging away every day - the lurkers will be reading and learning (and seeing Snappity for the TRA they are).

The EA uses sex and gender reassignment to mean different things. The GRA is the one that fudges sex and gender and there is a consultation open now to update it. Now is the opportunity to clarify the important distinction between the sexed body (material reality) and the 'gender identity (personal belief) in law.

They haven't won, and stop saying 'identify with'. It's meaningless.

We make sex secure and we clarify that gender is subjective.

May I respectfully suggest that you do you, GardenGeek, and not presume to tell me how I should do me?

You can, but it means there less likely to listen to you.

I disagree. Sane people listen.

They haven't won, and stop saying 'identify with'. It's meaningless.

Agreed. It suggests taking the logically irreconcilable 'Interactionist' position of the mind/body problem.

GardenGeek
I was referring to your forced teaming.