Peak GC Moment?

[CantUnderstandNoThing]

I've namechanged for this because I'm a bit nervous of the vitriol I have seen directed at others with a differing opinion.

I know there's been a few threads with people sharing the moments they hit "peak trans", often citing individuals (Karen, Lily etc) or moments that led them to their GC beliefs.

I've realised I've hit peak GC, or perhaps peak t--f would be more appropriate, and I was wondering if anyone else has? For me, the peaking moment was the interview with India and Posie. I felt very uncomfortable with how offensive and discriminatory Posie's argument was. And really, it just came across as hateful. I realised I didn't want to be aligned with that.

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

Anyone else feel the same? Or starting to feel the same?

lweji
Doesn’t make my point any less valid.

But this is what I struggle with. Genuinely. If someone law abiding and decent changes from man to woman, what rights do we lose? I honestly can’t see any. I totally get the safety factor worries obviously - but trans people must have been using the ladies before all this started. I don’t think “safety” has anything inherently to do with someone being transgender - but I do think certainly people like Posie have tried to make ot look that way

Not all men are a threat to women, but sex segregation is necessary to protect the dignity and safety of women. Decent men do not mind not being allowed into these spaces because they are not and never were a threat. But the segregation exists to keep ALL men out because unfortunately SOME men ARE a threat and it is impossible to tell at first glance which is which.

I agree with you that being transgender does not = threat. But trans women are born male and there will be some who are NOT like your relative. And far from just wanting to live their life in peace (like the vast majority of us want to do) will use self ID as a way to access the very people who the segregation has been put in place to protect. And I cannot agree with that.

Genuinely. If someone law abiding and decent changes from man to woman, what rights do we lose?

1. The ability of women - people with uteruses, if you prefer - to define themselves independently of men - people with penises.

1. The ability to name our oppression, which is based on our biology, and our oppressors - who are men, male human beings. The ability to name the means of that oppression, which is gender.

1. The ability to acknowledge reality. There are two biological sexes and human beings can not change sex. It is impossible for a man to become a woman.

1. The ability to acknowledge gendered socialization and it’s impact. Male and female children are treated very differently, almost from the moment of birth.

1. The ability of women and girls to have spaces and places apart from male human beings, for our dignity, comfort and safety.

That’s just off the top of my head.

A woman who doesn't have periods because their female reproductive system isn't functioning properly is not having the same experience as a male who doesn't have periods because he has a male reproductive system and produces sperm.

Lweji,

That's true for race too, but most of us would think it ugly and wrong for a white person to claim their internally-held black identity should be the defining factor for their race, rather than anything to do with their skin color or ancestry.

No two people in an oppressed category experience identical oppression. That doesn't mean someone in the oppressor category can magically switch over.

That's true for race too, but most of us would think it ugly and wrong for a white person to claim their internally-held black identity should be the defining factor for their race, rather than anything to do with their skin color or ancestry.

But some people are essentially transracial in that racial divisions aren't always black and white (literally). There isn't anything particularly innate about race. A Chinese Buddhist child switched at birth with a Malay Muslim child is not significantly different from a Malay Muslim child who was not switched at birth..

Male vs female is many times more fundamental.

The fact that women are not allowed to reject transgenderism without being accused of being Nazis, whereas the rejection of transracialism (a genuine phenomenon both in the case of adoption/birth switching, and those who simply identify as transracial) without question shows how much women are valued in society, that is to say not at all.

The starting point for being able to discuss how to accommodate everybody's needs and wants is one where the scientific fact of biological sex is recognised as being separate and something to protect in law.

Until that happens, we won't really be able to move the discussion of gender identity and how that fits in with society, ie which spaces can be gendered spaces where appropriate or necessary (not sure where that might be). Or which ones we can remove sex segregation from completely. Or whatever other changes we need to make as a society to make the trans community feel included whilst also protecting the rights of women because sex and gender being two separate things will have been acknowledged.

sigh.

Genuinely. If someone law abiding and decent changes from man to woman, what rights do we lose?

In this debate, I'm all about the practical consequences.

So: do women in prison lose the right to be incarcerated only with other prisoners of the same sex? Or do women's prisons now have to include transwomen, and not just the unthreatening ones who're in for fraud or embezzlement, but the convicted rapists with penises.

If I join a gym can I expect to have a shower and emerge into the communal changing room in only a towel, to be confronted by a gender fluid individual with penis having one of their "womanly" days? Or can I ask my gym if they provide single sex facilities (and if they say yes, to honour that)?

Can a rape crisis centre set up a women only group session for women who cannot cope with being around male bodied individuals while they discuss their trauma? Or will the centre have its funding pulled if it does that?

Can a female team refuse to play against opposition with a 6'4" 15 stone male bodied individual in the scrum, or will they be kicked out of their league for doing so?

It's about so much more than toilets, and so much more than passing.

I can sum up my stance on the issue in one quote:

Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.
~Henry David Thoreau

The truth is simply that humans cannot change sex and words have meanings. In this vein it is very hard for me to understand where OP comes from. The GC stance reflects what is true, even if it may not always reflect what is kind (to men, I am tempted to ad).
Though thinking it through, I believe that particularly in this case the truth is ultimately the kinder option, as Miranda Yardley also points out. Fact is, transpeople who are not in denial of the truth come across as much more rounded and at peace with themselves.

MrsCupCake91 Most trans children have decided with great determination that they are trans well before any input from 'experts' based upon information from the Internet, TV, friends and sometimes family. The experts affirm those views and are expected to treat them if they persist, but the views didn't come from the experts. My dd was one of these children and I know how it works. Identity develops socially. Identity doesn't exist without the views of others. What you think about male Ness and femaleness affects my dd's likelihood to seek out a double mastectomy and lifelong hormone treatment. I had views like yours once. I do have an internal sense of what it is to be a woman. I came to realise that it is socially constructed. I was sexist and just couldn't see it.

“
A woman who doesn't have periods because their female reproductive system isn't functioning properly is not having the same experience as a male who doesn't have periods because he has a male reproductive system and produces sperm.”

And...what? What difference does lacking that experience make to someone becoming a woman? I have never been in a toilet or changing room and had that thought cross my mind, or worried about people who don’t.

MrsCupCake, what then do you think a woman is? How do we define woman if not by biological sex? What exactly do all women have in common if not biological sex?

I feel uncomfortable with Posie pointing out directly to a transwoman that TW are not women and that women don't have a penis in the same way as I find it uncomfortable to watch Simon Cowell tell an X factor hopeful that they can't sing. It seems to me that both TW and X factor hopefuls are suffering from similar entitled delusions - that they can be something that they are not. It is hurtful to their feelings to point out how wrong they are, it feels uncomfortable to hurt others feelings. For me one of the big problems with being GC is that its not possible to avoid hurting TRA's feelz - they claim my existence is hurtful to their feelings. The dissonance is hard to deal with but I firmly believe in the GC standpoint so I'm getting over it.

For me one of the big problems with being GC is that its not possible to avoid hurting TRA's feelz

"Feelz" "menz" "laydeez".

I don't see the need to use language like to support your (general your) case.

My dislike has nothing to do with "female socialisation to be nice" (I don't think I am particularly nice) but that it simply looks childish and weakens any point you are trying to make.

MrsCupCake

I'm sure your friend is delightful. And absolutely no threat.

But this isn't, and never has been, about individuals. We don't base laws on those individuals who wouldn't dream of breaking them.

Only you know that your friend's no risk. You can't expect anyone else to take your word for it.

You must also realise you cannot base sex based law around what someone looks like - especially when they go out of their way to disguise their sex.

You claiming your friend is a woman simply doesn't bear scrutiny, unless you change the meaning from the sex class who can bear eggs.

People keep saying transwomen are women, but they're not defining the words. It's just meaningless jibber jabber unless you have definitions.

People keep saying transwomen are women, but they're not defining the words. It's just meaningless jibber jabber unless you have definitions.

And they never, ever come up with a definition. I can come up with a definition, however - but it isn't one that includes 'any man who says he is', I'm afraid. Which is what self-id will give us.

Trans women are not women.
Trans women are trans women.

And they never, ever come up with a definition.

I know, right. And I understand why they don't. Because they will have to have acknowledge that they are talking about a social role.

It's frustrating and telling that everyone who says transwomen are women fail to explain. Because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are being sexist.

I'm just not sure how Posie Parker saying India Willoughby shouldn't be indulging in delusions on national TV is helping that argument

Well if she hadn't been asked directly about IW then she wouldn't have said that. Infact she tried to speak generally a few times and it kept being brought back to 'oh but India...'. I don't see what else she could have said really. Without lying, which is what they wanted her to do.

Can't believe we have to keep having the same conversation again and again and again. For the love of all that is splendid, how stupid do you have to be to not understand that PEOPLE CAN'T CHANGE SEX! It's the most ludicrous idea ever. And if some people want to believe it's true, or even more ridiculous believe that it's possible to be neither a man nor a woman, then fine... But that belief is akin to a religion. Insisting everybody else has to follow your religion and demanding laws get changed to reflect your religion is totalitarianism. Anyone trying to force their magical belief system on me can get fucked.

Well if she hadn't been asked directly about IW then she wouldn't have said that. Infact she tried to speak generally a few times and it kept being brought back to 'oh but India...'. I don't see what else she could have said really. Without lying, which is what they wanted her to do.

This.

They purposely put her on with IW and made her discuss the issue on a personal individual level, when this issue isn't about individuals. Unless she was going to say 'yes India you are a woman' which she was never going to do, she had no choice but to say 'I believe that India is a man'. And actually it was quite powerful to hear that on television.

I'm a bit late to this discussion so has anybody asked the OP yet what she would consider a polite objection from the gc crowd?

When one "rude" feminist is enough for a woman to start supporting rapists... that woman has way too much internalized male supremacy and way too much internalized submissiveness. Instead of telling the feminists that they are rude and need to be nicer, that woman needs to work on her own self esteem. Cos right now it's in the toilet.

When one "rude" feminist is enough for a woman to start supporting rapists...

Which poster on here is "supporting rapists"?

It's that sort of hyperbole which puts me off committing to the majority concensus on here. A thread saying essentially I'm not entirely happy the radical feminist , gender critical view sometimes becomes"rapist supporter"