#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?

If gender and sex are separated then gender identity can’t be anything other than a belief. So I would be happy for laws preventing discrimination against people for their gender identity. I would also be happy for third spaces and facilities to help people who feel that their gender identity prevents them from using those of their sex. Ditto shortlists and visibility for people of a non-binary gender identity. But that is as far as it can go. It doesn’t change chromosomes and chromosomes are what govern access to same sex spaces.
I think if gender and sex are separated then it is harder for TRAs to make a legitimate argument for access. They either have to say sex has no relevance whatsoever or that they actually ARE the opposite sex. I think that they will struggle on both counts.

But yeah this is all down to the idiots who legislated back in 2004. The debate should have been had at the time. The current law and the proposals are not good for either women or transsexuals.

Let me see if I've understood you, GardenGeek.

I agree that the problem is the conflation of sex and gender. I agree because it is a central point of the GC argument.

Where the disagreement seems to be here is how to deal with that conflation.

The GC posters have been pursuing the method of making the distinction clear, and part of that is saying that sex is materially fact, and gender is a social construct, and therefore we should focus on facts, not constructs and unmeasurable internal feelings.

I think you're saying that you want to shift the focus and make the distinction clear, enshrine acknowledgement of sex in law, but also acknowledge genderism so that those who believe in it can still adopt specific social roles legally.

I think it's an interesting attempt to accommodate the quasi-religious perspective of the TRAs. I don't agree with it, because I think trying to enshrine in law highly subjective personal feelings that are based on changing cultural markers can only ever enshrine oppression when we should be fighting to end it.

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

Agree that this is the only way forward.

I do (i think) understand where you are coming from garden. Where i disagree though is where you are looking at it from a GRA legislative point that sex=gender (broadly). Which it may well do, legally BUT everyone I have spoken to in RL falls into one of two camps:

1. sex is real, gender is stereotypes/personality, sex dysphoria is an illness (more common), people can wear/sleep with whoever they like. This includes people across nationality, race, class, sex, (gender identity), religion, political alliances, and from MRAs to lesbian separatists.
2. you can literally be born in the wrong body and sex change is physically possible (much less common). These are nearly always people who are less educated, lower soc ec, care leavers, non-voters, women. Religious in the vague sense rather than the frequent church going sense.

I feel that focussing completely on the legislation ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of people don't believe in an innate gender, so getting legislation to include gender as a well as sex as a compromise isn't really a compromise at all. I feel that group number 2 have been massively influenced by propaganda from the Followers of Genderism, things like I am Jazz. At the moment, politics are only listening to the loud voices and ignoring anyone guilty of wrongthink. Think of it like brexit - except we aren't getting a referendum on this for the country to show they disagree. The majority are unaware of the consultation, even.

You can't negotiate with totalitarians and people who believe they are entitled to be your representation, any more than you can argue with a cluster B disorder.

I appreciate that Garden is looking for consensus. But I don't see any point.

A compromise that includes Gi as a belief or GNC as it's own subject, I could support. But the majority of people IME still think it's nonsense.

Would becoming an official religion benefit charities from a tax stance? Or would they be against losing their gov donations...

(took me so long to type that last post that the thread has moved on)

No, I'm with you, Lang.

The TWAW activists won't accept anything but total capitulation, GardenGeek. All women's spaces and opportunities must be colonised to satisfy their narcissism and entitlement. Because if even a tiny toehold isn't accessible to them they see this as an intolerable insult, proof that they're not being treated as "real women"™.

Laws should not be able to be drafted without defining terms. Gender identity is entirely subjective. There can be no way to test for it, or to quantify it. Plus it's not even a quality that everyone shares.

No law should include gender identity without dealing with these issues. The GRA looks very badly advised and has not worn well. It should be repealed.

So, hey, as I don't look at other women's genitals I am not the right person to ask. Ask one of the other handful who do look maybe?

Well this thread got off to a creepy start, didn't it? Just how do you manage to do that Snap?

Ignoring all the tag-teaming and looking for where to put the wedge into, I agree with Prawn

The TWAW activists won't accept anything but total capitulation, GardenGeek. All women's spaces and opportunities must be colonised to satisfy their narcissism and entitlement. Because if even a tiny toehold isn't accessible to them they see this as an intolerable insult, proof that they're not being treated as "real women"™.

Laws should not be able to be drafted without defining terms. Gender identity is entirely subjective. There can be no way to test for it, or to quantify it. Plus it's not even a quality that everyone shares.

No law should include gender identity without dealing with these issues. The GRA looks very badly advised and has not worn well. It should be repealed.

Garden, you are trying to appeal to our female socialisation. We're pretty much over it, given how we have been treated over defending our very existence.

We get the handmaids on side with something they dont object to and all the other blocks fall in place.

Rubbish. The handmaidens only go along with what is good for men (and maybe themselves, individually). And that would be why they are called handmaidens. Stop trying to shift imaginary goalposts. I know exactly where they are.

Right now we are the 'baddies'

Not really. 82% of the population think gender feelz are bollocks.
Of course, we won't get credit for highlighting it. Same as it ever was.