Will society accept transwomen ARE women in future generations?

[interestingdebatetoday]

Today I debated with a young woman I adore. I'm in my 30's, her in her 20's. She attended uni in a very liberal city and has studied psychology. Definitely armed to hold an opinion.

We disagree currently on several of the current topics re trans. I personally hold what's probably the norm on the feminist boards of mumsnet in my views.

It made me wonder though - she claims not to feel women are really impacted, uses unisex bathrooms as a norm, and obviously has been socialised to not find an issue in accepting transwomen as women. Is it possible that actually society will progress in a way that her generation down simply won't have the issues which I feel exist when trying to include transwomen AS women?

Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?

It has to go one way or the other really doesn't it? Either a big u turn and the idea that transwomen ARE women becomes laughable and delusional is mainstream and acceptable (as many of us might feel on the boards) OR transwomen ARE women and we were the ones who were wrong

It made me wonder... I was really suprised tbh. 10 years later made a huge difference to whether we felt our rights were under attack...

I enjoy embarrassing men with my period as much as the next woman, but I generally find it sufficient to mention that I am grumpy because I have cramps.
No need for washing out mooncups in front of them.

Concerning the prison debate: I have no doubt that the motives of the men in power for allowing women separation from male prisoners weren't pure as driven snow.

Perhaps they just didn't want to have to pay for the upkeep of all those children fathered by prison rapists. Or not want to have to delay women's executions (not sure when that was abolished) due to pregnancy.

However, anyone with half a brain realizes that it is not in women's best interest to be imprisoned with criminal men, of whom some are imprisoned for rape and others are imprisoned for other crimes but are also rapists.

The fact that women's prisons are underfunded and lack many of the luxuries male prisoners are given is of course something that should be changed, but imprisoning the women with males is not the solution.

Although both developed the way they did because the role of women as subservient and inferior to men was accepted in a way we really don't accept in this day and age and in this country.

Er, no. That I believe is part of the argument that we only have single sex spaces of any kind due to a kind of Victorian prudishness that we have now got over. There is more to it than that in reality. As per Hestia's post.

My own view of the future is that there is likely to be a backlash to all this flim-flammery (not just this but other forms of fake news/information overload and social media influence in general.) I may be overly optimistic but I can see the pendulum swinging the other way. A return to material realities and facts, a dislike of bullshittery, a return to better critical thinking and ways to sort through information. I also think old-school feminism will make a comeback in a few years as young women find themselves fighting for their rights all over again.

In a nutshell, I think we have got complacent in general. With everything that's going on in the country and culturally, with systems we've taken for granted pushed to breaking point, I see that many of those comfortable assumptions are going to start being questioned. My only hope is that isn't just going to involve a swing to the far right. But I think there is a lot of resistance to that too on the ground and that I expect will gain momentum over the next few years.

Perhaps they just didn't want to have to pay for the upkeep of all those children fathered by prison rapists.

Agree, that was probably more of a consideration than the rights of the women not to be raped. And access to women would have been seen as a 'perk' for the male prisoners who were there to be punished. Depriving the men of sex was probably more of a reason for removing the women than making women safe.

There was a prison reform movement and a wider religious revival with associated moral panic about lower orders morals – as well as issues around pleading the belly to postponed hangmen- which I image played a role in putting political pressure to segregate prisons – though I don’t know for sure.

Lets not forget the role historically of prisions reforming women into good wives and domestic servants (under their masters supervision)...

16 odd years ago I was shocked and horrified by a shower scene that had men and women showering naked in the same space perfectly comfortably.

I used to shower with my mixed Volleyball team and the teams we played against. I didn't mind and neither did my female team mates but even then 25-30 years ago now, at the big outdoor tournaments that are played on the continent, the women of the Italian teams used to organize a shower/changing room for women only and guard it fiercely. My niece (26) who also plays Volleyball says that they are not sharing changing rooms anymore.
Maybe the sharing was the aberration from the norm? Or maybe having smart phones everywhere changed how people feel about it? That some women are ok with it doesn't mean everybody has to be. I'm equally sure that a lot of men aren't keen on sharing either.

Lets not forget the role historically of prisions reforming women into good wives and domestic servants

Probably a good thing that access to female toilets spread liberating women by granting access to a greater number of respectable roles in society rather than be finding themselves tethered to house and home.

Hoping the segregation of woman become less pronounced not more and that the issues that mean this generation feel the need to segregate themselves are not present into the next.

Why? What's it to you whether people feel comfortable in intimate situations with men there? My young female family members wouldn't.

You are talking in the abstract. In a future world where the behaviour of men is completely different to how it is today.

As was I in the comments that I made because the OP was about attitudes to trans women in generations to come ie the future, not here and now.

Why are we wrong then to ponder what might be in 100 years time?

In this future where there is no Male and female how will the people who are of the sex class that gestate the young organise themselves to fight for the right to not be at a disadvantage because of that fact?

But then it might not be only women who have babies and so there will be no disadvantage heaped on women because they have babies.

Or if we reach a time where sex is a non issue because there aren't 2 distinct sexes again maybe the discrimination won't happen because there will not just be natal men and natal women?

I rather fear the backlash will involve a swing to the far right. But then, I am pessimistic.

The sad thing is that all those males who now demand access to women's spaces will also profit from the backlash.Many already profited immensely from patriarchy and male privilege before they decided they now felt like women, and they will do so again, no doubt.

I sincerely think the trans movement is largely a post modernist fad. Fed by the interests of big pharma and other vested interest groups.That is not to dismiss the angst felt by those with genuine dysphoria.In time it will pass, leaving just those few who fully transition.

The fact that there has been the stirrings of opposition in Britain has provided a welcome door for those who feel similarly in other countries, which already have self ID. Once the issues keep asserting themselves; eventually there will be a corresponding reply from governments and institutions.

Are you arguing that separate toilets and prisons for women and men came about because women were considered subservient and inferior to men?

On another thread it was discussed that ladies toilets came about when women were able to venture outside of the home and men didn't want them going into their toilets.

I think that's what is being referred to - that womens toilets and women's prisons didn't come about for the same reasons.

Then, in a partial attempt to address these issues, women prisoners were removed from general population and housed separately, but then subject to neglect wherein they did not receive the same resources as men in prisons.*

Why were women neglected then if they weren't considered inferior?

But then it might not be only women who have babies and so there will be no disadvantage heaped on women because they have babies.

Which will never happen. Only the female sex can have babies, and whether or not you call us women won't change that fact. And linguistics won't change facts.

The male sex has not been capable of having babies since the male sex exists. Not being capable of having babies is the definition of "male". We call the trees that do not bear fruit male, we call the animals that bear no young male. (And there's only minor confusion about the male seahorse who carries the eggs laid by the female in its pouch)

Before there were males, there were sexless organism that could just clone themselves.

If you are talking of the Frankenstein-esque idea of cutting women open to remove their wombs in order to implant those wombs into males ... that WOULD immensely negatively affect women (or females, or whatever you choose to call us).

But then it might not be only women who have babies and so there will be no disadvantage heaped on women because they have babies.

So you want to design society around the science fiction idea that men will be able gestate babies in the future. Riiiiiiiight.

While we’re at it why don’t we stop investing in airline safety as in the future humans will fly.

Why were women neglected then if they weren't considered inferior?

Don't pretend to be stupid. Of course the sex that produces sperm and does not bear young has considered the sex that produces ova and bears young inferior for a long time.

Which is, if you paid attention, why they had no moral qualms about depraving female prisoners of basic privacy and dignity before it turned out that this created problems for them, such as pregnant prisoners and babies in prison.

I have no doubt at all that female prisoners always wanted spaces separate form male spaces, and were glad when they finally got them.

The fact that separation always enables patriarchy to allocate less ressources to the institutions for females (girls and women) is a problem that exists because we are still ruled by men. If there was equality in politics, and the women in politics actually identified with their female voters, that wouldn't be a problem.

Or if we reach a time where sex is a non issue because there aren't 2 distinct sexes again maybe the discrimination won't happen because there will not just be natal men and natal women?

And when we grow wings we won’t have to worry about getting to the airport an hour early.

I think what is possibly being missed by those who consider the idea of a non-sexed future is that this is not what TRAs are demanding. They WANT there to be single-sex spaces and rights for women. They just want men to have the right to self-ID into those spaces and rights, therefore making them mixed-sex. The difference is that women will have to pretend that they are still single-sex.

Nailed it howl

But then it might not be only women who have babies and so there will be no disadvantage heaped on women because they have babies.

I very much doubt there will ever be a time where men will gestate babies impregnated against their will. I bet in 100 years, assuming humanity will survive, there will still be women who will be impregnated against their will.
Men being somehow able to carry a child to term would change nothing about that.

I very much doubt there will ever be a time where men will gestate babies impregnated against their will. I bet in 100 years, assuming humanity will survive, there will still be women who will be impregnated against their will. Men being somehow able to carry a child to term would change nothing about that.

Correct.

This whole Frankensteinian 'men might one day be able to have someone's womb stuck in their body and it might be able to gestate someone else's foetus' (which begs so many questions I don't know where to start) notion is a complete red herring within the discussion of how women's biology leads to our oppression.

I think what is possibly being missed by those who consider the idea of a non-sexed future is that this is not what TRAs are demanding

True. Which is why what they are demanding cannot even be justified by citing countries where mixed saunas are the norm.

If a male molests women in an officially mixed sex space, he still has some risk of being punched in the face by the father, boyfriend or husband of the woman he molested.
And, I assume, as mixed saunas, etc. are more common where women have more rights, and have been more equal historically, there's also the possibility that men who view women as human will help throw a creepy male out.

A "single gender" space where women can only keep out those men they know and trust, but cannot keep out complete strangers who are male but identify as feminine-gender, is even less safe than an officially mixed sex space.
Moreover, while in an officially mixed sex space, the group as a whole can decide to kick a creepy male out, in a single gender space, women aren't even allowed to say that there's a creepy male there.

For all of those missing my point - the OP asked what would views be in generations to come.

In a hundred years, or more from now, views and attitudes will be entirely different to what they are now. Look at how different the world is today than 100 years ago. I doubt people during WW1 were imagining what mobile phones would be like or how they would use the internet. Developments that are commonplace now weren't even thought about 100 years ago so who knows what the future will look like?

Humans will adapt to the needs of the society that they live in. If society no longer needs males and females as separate sexes then humans will adapt.

Scientists already have the ability to clone mammals. As soon as they develop the ability(or get permission) to clone humans then human reproduction will look very different to what it looks like today.

If a uterus is no longer needed to gestate a foetus because it can be done artificially (as is already happening with babies at around the 23 week mark and this is being pushed further and further. When my son was born 24 years ago 28 weeks was considered viable so in only 1 generation we have pushed viability from 28 weeks to 23 or less) then women won't be needed for reproduction. Surely then gender stereotypes will no longer exist because much of the basis for them will disappear.