#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 use brexit because the general public were ignored on the subject for years, everyone assumed the "right decision" would be made and only racists etc voted leave, without actually engaging with them. From my POV it wouldn't be a bad thing if that did happen here (and I'm a leave voter!) as the PTB are assuming the population buy into the Gender belief system.

The difference though, is that went to a referendum and the public both saw that it was happening (couldn't bloody miss it!) and got the chance to influence it. The public largely don't know the GRA consultation is going, and even if millions did find out and responded with their honest opinion, it is not a referendum.

Leaving aside the minefield of what exactly leave/remain voters were voting for and how they were influenced either way, and then the added minefield of whether a referendum is actually legally binding, we know for sure that it WAS considered legally binding by the gov, and that a consultation is not.

I'm not saying we should have one (goddess, no), but I'd be interested to see which way a referendum would go on this. Forced choice, sex or gender.

Garden - most us started out as live and let live, evolved to some version of your position, then realised that there is no compromise that will ever be acceptable. Because we are dealing with a male supremacist sexual rights movement.

Yes, we can legislate to make gender expression (not fucking identity) a protected characteristic. But that has nothing to do with the aims of the Followers of Genderism. That isn't what they want. They won't stop.

Appeasing abusers does not work. They see it as encouragement and they don't compromise: they go further. You cannot give them an inch if you have the best interests of women and girls at heart.

There is no such thing as a gender identity. It cannot be defined objectively and therefore it should not be legislated. You can protect gender expression from discrimination and I'm fine with that in areas such as employment and housing. But people can't change sex, men as a class are a danger to women, and women's single sex spaces must stay. End of.

Pie in the sky. Sorry, Garden. But pie in the sky.

and not all handmaids are men.

You are using a different definition. By virtue of the label, they are females, who (sometimes pretend to be feminists), but in reality are more like Surrendered Wives. They are the privileged Serena Joys.

Thanks Lang, totally agree.

You seperate gender and sex you win the fight forever.

Not really. It used to be acknowledged as separate. And look where we are now.

Have you not studied the tactics of the Genderists in all this?

Because you can't see beyond "gender" as a set of sex stereotypes. That's their definition (created to obscure the fact that they are talking about a set of sex stereotypes).

That isn't what gender is. Gender is a power relationship; the social tool that oppresses women. Sex stereotypes are a manifestation of gender, not gender itself.

I know you think you've found the answer, Garden, but you really, really haven't.

Ah if I was PM though, I'd include gender identity as a belief, but completely separate to sex. Could even include feminism then too

Also GNC people in general and other sub-cultures would have some sort of recognition.

In fact there are probably a huge list of things I'd include

I would hope that - included separately as a belief - the world would gradually see the lack of logic in the idea. But I'm not sure I would trust the PTB to help with that, given they are operating in a patriarchy n'all.

Hmm...

I believe GI belief is regressive, but then I also believe particular religious beliefs are regressive. They should still be protected against discrimination in law, cause I'm not a dick

Yep. I think making it akin to a religion, rather than a physical reality like sex or age or disability, would both protect those that need protection and make it clear that it’s not relevant to great swathes of the population.

Yes, but there has to be a legal definition of gender drawn up that includes the word ‘stereotype’! And it’s non conforming presentation that should be protected against discrimination, not identity (the same way that it’s not religious belief itself that is protected).

Need to take the ‘woo’ out of it.

We are saying Gender is distinct from sex. We aren't saying it isn't real either. That's like the TRAs nonsense claim that we don't think transgender people exist.

of course we believe it exists. We just don't concede that it is anything more tangible than a conflicting bunch of feelings and stereotypes congealed into a system that keeps people boxed in and maintains the power differential being men and women socially (and therefore impacts all people who don't buy into it negatively).

How would acknowledging that system in law work beyond pointing out it's oppression of us all?

Most of us started or went through thinking like yours Garden, but actually you can't compromise with these people. And in fact we don't need to. The vast majority of the public agree with us. These changes only get made if they can get made in secret. The cat's out of the bag, women are fighting back and the public (and therefore politicians) are noticing.

The fight isn't over, but we're winning.

This isn't the time to give the genderists an inch.