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?

I also can’t imagine a man deliberately going through the self id stuff they are proposing, to deliberately go into a toilet etc with the sole intention of attacking someone. It seems crazy. Men who attack women do it regardless.
The problem with self-id is that it removes any real definition of what a woman is. Predatory men would not even have to go through self-id at all, as the ideology is that a woman is anyone who says they are one, so even querying if they have a GRC would be deemed a hate crime. The only way you could challenge men being in female spaces is if they do anything dodgy.

My relative is an adult human female. Everything in her life says so. Your argument is that because she doesn’t have the innards that no-one can see or can actually do anything harmful, then she needs to be segregated. Think about that for a moment. A person doesn’t have a particular organ in their body. Are you going to xray people? Because with my relative you would never know. Or are you going on looks? I was also told as a feminist that we should fight against judging women on their looks (which in my relative’s case is immaterial, as her height, build, facial features look totally female)

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Your relative is not an adult human female. It isn't about looks. It's about objective, material reality.

Using the term 'segregated' that way is deliberately emotive, unless you think that everything, everywhere, should be unisex. Separate male and female toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, etc. is sex segregation. It's done for very good reasons and isn't arbitrarily based on looks or preferences. Conversely, there's no good reason to divide these facilities based on whether people identify more with masculine or feminine stereotypes.

MrsCupCake I think you are doing your relative a disservice actually by insisting they are literally 'female'. This is a biological impossibility and expecting people to believe something patently untrue will create a backlash. There are plenty of transwomen who acknowledge they are not actually women and who state that the TWAW mantra is damaging to them.

If you pick someone you dont like in the public eye and ask them what their views are on a wide range of subjects, you’ll find that they do not align with your views 100%. Perhaps their view on NATO membership for some countries is different to yours. Perhaps their view on climate change is different. Maybe they have some odd ideas about trade tariffs.
Ditto someone you do like or admire. It’s vastly unlikely that all their views on everything will be the same as yours.

But it seems to be only the last 5-10 years where this has been a big issue. Previously, we seemed to be able to say ‘actually mr. Secretary, I really disagree with your approach to x but I agree with y. Let’s work on y and disagree about x.’

But nowvthere seems to be this very black and white, simplistic thought process being pushed, that there are goodies and baddies. You laud the goodies and lambast the baddies. A goodie who slips up is required to grovel and may still be put in the baddie pile. Anyone agreeing with a baddie about anything is, by definition, a baddie too. The left (and I am left wing) are particularly bad for this.

But that's not how life works. You probably have a few views in common with trump. Or Mussolini. Or really anyone. There are probably a few things you really, really disagree with someone you admire on. It would be illogical surely to expect to agree 100% with someone? Why would you expect to?

And agreeing on one issue doesn’t mean you agree with and support and are now best buddies with, the person. It’s perfectly OK to say that a president is right to stop drilling in the arctic and wrong to put gender not sex into title IX.

Agreeing with someone you don’t like on one issue doesn’t mean you align with them totally, and I find it rather odd that this argument is pushed - it’s identity politics, and that not a good thing.

My relative is an adult human female. Everything in her life says so

Apart from the gametes their body is designed to produce

Which means they’re not female

You’re cool with sharing sleeping and washing facilities with men? Fine

I’m not

MrsCupCake91 she is not female. Otherwise she would not have needed to transition.
You and many others may well be happy to accept her as female - other women and girls will not, and you can't force them to.
Do you lack empathy for vulnerable women and girls who ask for protection & privacy from men?

''Your argument is that because she doesn’t have the innards that no-one can see or can actually do anything harmful, then she needs to be segregated.''

Saving women only spaces for women is not demanding trans people are segregated. This kind of hyperbole just damages your argument.

No-one has told me why my relative, who has a female body (apart from inside) and who looks 100% female in terms of build and features, needs to be stopped from using the ladies? I feel myself getting sucked into a pointless argument, which isn’t my intention. I just feel strongly about this, and having finally voiced an opinion, it’s all coming out. Will leave it there.

My relative is an adult human female.

They may be a lovely person and they may wish this is so. However, humans cannot change sex. This is a fact. Facts do t really care about feelings.

If there were no repercussions for women we could accommodate the wish in some way. But as saying a man is a woman actively leads to the removal of women’s rights we cannot play along.

Well, this thread didn't follow a predictable pattern at all.

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

No

MrsCupCake91 They have told you why. You just haven't listened.

"And I don't like the singling out of eg that photo of Danielle Muscato when they are now starting to physically transition"

Oh come off it. Daniele had a full beard and for women's day said 'suck my dick'.

This wasn't just 'looks a bit big and masculine'

Also Danielle's mother had to file suit to eject Danielle from Danielle's mother's home, and then Danielle went to live in a woman's shelter.

Danielle is a vile individual

LangCleg sorry I find it difficult to read tone sometimes - are you being sarcastic there?

I've found it a very interesting thread, and really identified bwith bowl's post re identity politics

MrsCupCake91 Your relative is an adult human, yes, but not female! And if I met your relative, I may well respond to them as if they are female, but the fact remains that humans CANNOT change their sex.

IW knows that IW is a man, as does everyone else although IW passes until IW speaks and acts very male IMHO. In forcing people to state a lie as a truth (social niceties aside) it becomes a power dynamic, where the male of the two wants to force the female to concede. Why is that? Why was Posie Parker wrong to say that IW should be free to do all the things that IW has done, while still being a man? I noticed that the question 'what does living as a woman even mean?' was dodged on This Morning

Oh I totally agree that Daniele is fairly vile in some ways. I just don't like the pre transition photo used as an argument against TW. Use the fact he said mysoginistic things, or his using a place on a female refuge instead. Just singling out that one pre transition photo feels not right to me. Especially as a bearded lady (actually bearded btw - male pattern)

MrsCupCake91 because she is not a woman.
And if we only accept transwomen who are fortunate enough to 'pass', then that is a crappy state of affairs for transwomen who won't.
It needs to be sex segregated, or not. And if it is, then it is sex segregated based on biology.

No I don’t want men in female spaces. But that’s the root of this argument. I and lots of other women do not regard my relative as a man - but you do. Even though she could spend a year in your company and you wouldn’t know. Unless she told you. You would only class her as male when you found out. That’s why I feel uneasy about the GC line. Anyway, leave it there.

The thing is, we don't get to pick and choose based on a subjective opinion. For me, transwomen are men and you have no right to force them on me.

Fwiw, I consider this a profoundly uncomfortable and upsetting topic, and I am heartily sick of it. I am a little bored of the merry go round arguments, and I have enough actual, real life crap due to gender shit to make me wish by the hour that it would all just go away. Apart from all that, I just don't enjoy controversy.

I do not agree with every Feminist position, I do not agree with every person espousing an ostensibly GC view here, or anywhere else. I find gender, on the whole to be an oppressive and unnecessary straitjacket, and while I don't have an issue with anyone who believes it's an important thing -because everyone is entitled to believe as they wish - I object very, very strongly to women's rights being curtailed by it, and reality being questioned to the extent that we mutilate children and adults to confirm to it.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to walk away from it all, so while some of your wording has been clumsy, OP, I do understand your psychology here. Ever since I have been reading posters have said how very uncomfortable it makes them to have alliances with certain people and publications, but that there are real red lines that just should be crossed wrt rights and protections of everyone, but women and children in particular.

However, when I regroup from being so battered by it all, I sit and think through yet again what the issues are, and all I see contra-GC is accusations of not being kind enough, assumptions that if I just knew someone trans I'd change my mind, faulty biological thinking that suggests an inverted penis is a vagina, and a hefty amount of totalitarian cultish bullying.

I'm not saying I agree with every ostensibly GC voice, I don't. But gender is a gaping maw that will eat you up, no matter how kind you are to people who believe in it, and that won't change because someone GC is rude to someone.

" I just don't like the pre transition photo used as an argument against TW"

That's not a pre transition photo though. That was Danielle's proud woman face on Facebook, Twitter etc. after changing gender.

Good question. What does “living as a woman” mean? It’s different for all of is. My experience will be very different from the Queen’s, Kim Kardashian, a nun or an East European sex worker. You tell me what the definitive answer is?

I am somewhat inclined to believe CupCake that their relative fully passes as female, even when naked. In that case no-one would realise they were trans and they could use women's facilities.

What if they didn't pass though? Do you think we should have one rule for trans who pass and another for those who don't? I presume so, otherwise you wouldn't have spent time emphasising how we would need an X-ray to realise your relative was male.

Is it okay to segregate non-passing trans people?

QuietContraryMary - really??!!!

I and lots of other women do not regard my relative as a man - but you do. Even though she could spend a year in your company and you wouldn’t know. Unless she told you. You would only class her as male when you found out.

So the definition of 'woman' is 'anyone who appears to be a woman' then? What if two people met your relative and one person realised they were male and the other didn't? Would they then be simultaneously both male and female?