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Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?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 actually can’t believe that someone would look at the statistic 1:20 and think that’s an argument AGAINST sex segregation.

Can anyone find that Scottish study which asked men if they would have sex with a woman against her will if she could get away with it?
I can’t find it anyway.

I wouldn’t want to stop producing males, I would keep some as pets.

But I would breed them small so I can keep them in a handbag like a chihuahua

I actually can’t believe that someone would look at the statistic 1:20 and think that’s an argument AGAINST sex segregation.

I'm not saying 1:20 is an argument for or against anything.

What I was saying is that the original claim of 1:10 was completely made up, as I still believe in absence of proof to the opposite.

Me too

Ok then,
It’s one in twenty, can we keep the blue m&ms from pretending to be yellow ones now?

Not one of those species is a mammal.

Sadly.

But hey, none of the species that can change sex is a mammal, either, (I only know of a kind of fish) but that doesn't stop some from hoping men will able to get pregnant.

If women treated men like men treat women

This week I've been thinking a lot of the long term posters of FWR from whom I learned so much at the beginning of the year.

thebewilderness was one of them.
She used to signpost to one or more of these rules when they were apparent.
I can never remember them all (but am thinking I should pin a copy up somewhere at home for reference)

THE RULES OF MISOGYNY

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.

5th rule of misogyny: WATM! [What about the Men] Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

6th rule of misogyny: Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breast feeding babies deserve punishment.

7th rule of misogyny: Women should always be grateful to men for everything.

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it males men look bad.

11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.

12th rule of misogyny: whatever women suffer from, men suffer from more.

I miss thebewilderness

I’m the same age as this girl. I will say two things. Firstly, my generation is full of morons. The dumbing down of national curriculums coupled with extreme anti bullying indoctrination (yes it was outright indoctrination) at schools has left large numbers of us intellectually crippled. It’s painful watching them try to think at university (Russel group so not exactly scraping the bottom of the barrel). The truth is that the vast majority of schools no longer teach critical thinking skills to students. Some manage to claw their way out (admittedly it’s mostly the ones who read, books are for many the onlysource of critical thinking) but many are alarming still lemmings. Secondly, it will all change when she has kids. My generation grew up with almost no distinction between the sexes (baring girls getting assultedif they weren’t careful and a few very optoutable gender stereotypes) but this chanted very suddenly when children enter the picture. I doubt that she will ever really give a shit who is having a shit in the cubicle next to her but it’s a real intellectual leap to have children and still think that trans women are in the same boat as physical women.

Mammal's are distinguished from other invertebrates by their reproductive system. They have live births, not eggs, and the mother produces milk.

Just FYI.

Rebecca Reilly-Cooper article:

'Some basic questions about sex and gender for progressives'

1. Do you believe that being born with the kind of body that has the potential to gestate children – a body with a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina – is of any political significance? Does having that kind of body have any bearing on a person’s likely opportunities and outcomes?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have historically been subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination? Have they historically been subordinated to the people with penises and testes?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies continue to be subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies often suffer physical and sexual violence, abuse and harassment perpetrated by the people with penises and testes?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies ought to have a label with which to define themselves? Does our language need a word to refer to the people with uteruses and ovaries?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to organise politically around their shared experiences, and to campaign and work for policies to secure their own interests?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to associate freely with other people with those kinds of bodies, and to have some separate spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity? Do people with those kinds of bodies have a right to some spaces where people with penises and testes are not permitted to enter?

1. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies sometimes have a right to policies and resources designated towards rectifying their historical and continued marginalisation and oppression?

If your answer to any of these questions is “yes”, you should reject the ideology of gender identity, and policy proposals based on that ideology such as the self-declaration of legal gender."

rebeccarc.com/2018/01/14/some-basic-questions-about-sex-and-gender-for-progressives/

@Calvinsmam: I found the study I referred to, not sure it is the one you mean:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/college-men-commit-rape-study_n_6445510.html

jezebel.com/1-in-3-college-men-admit-they-would-rape-if-we-dont-ca-1678601600

It is not one in ten males. It is one in three.

One in ten is just the number of males who admit to their desire to rape if the word "rape" is used.

Let that be a lesson to you, Weetabix: If someone makes a statement on male violence, you are better off believing it as said. If you make people google it, they might find out they misremembered it and it was actually worse.

That's the Lisak study, they seems to only have researched males who admit that they have raped already, so they obviously get a lower number:

www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

Ever heard the saying there are some ideas so dumb that only an intellectual could believe them? Ideology does that, it puts a filter in the mind where what is seen in the real world has to be twisted into something else to match the ideology. Carrying an ideology can consume a lot of mental energy... I think this is why most religious people have no truck with TWAW, they don’t buy TRA ideology as they already have a belief system, they don’t need an ideological rule book to help them make sense of the world, they have something much deeper, a religious faith. I also think this is why most ordinary people tend to get things right, they just believe what they see with their eyes and why very clever people also get it right, they are to clever too be fooled. And also why do many university educated people of average intelligence seem so, well, dumb I guess is the word. They’re looking at the world through an intellectual lense, the lense doesn’t have to be correct it just has to be complicated enough so they can’t mentally untangle it, but not so complicated they can’t learn it. Jordan Peterson once said SJW ideology took about three weeks to learn... make of that what you will.

That’s the one hestia

Fucking hell it never stops being grim

Your post was if 1:10 randomly selected males...

Now you've linked to a study apparently saying 1:3 college men would...

So, lesson to you HestiaParthenos, don't quote made up statistics and then don't misquote studies that you link to.

1:10 nor 1:3 randomly selected men are rapists. Again, link to the studies that show these figures.

This is the original 1 in 3 article, but it's behind a paywall - www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022

Oh actually it wasn’t!
The one I was thinking of was done in Scotland and it was to see if economic factors played into how well treat women, I’ve done some googling but can’t find it again.

Times article today by Alice Thomson :
'Criminalise punters to curb prostitution
‘High-end’ or not, vulnerable women are suffering and the men who fund their exploitation must face the consequences'

(extract)
"Exchanging sex for money remains legal in Britain, although related activities such as kerb-crawling, pimping, or running a brothel are crimes. Figures for prostitution are hard to come by but a 2016 report by the Commons home affairs select committee suggested that 11 per cent of British men aged 16-74 had paid for sex, while the number of sex workers was estimated to be 72,800. Between 1990 and 2015 an estimated 152 sex workers were murdered, and nearly half said that they were worried about their safety.

Prostitution has increased over the past decade for several reasons. The economic downturn, problems with the roll-out of universal credit and the collapse of the loan company Wonga have all contributed to women already struggling with bills selling their bodies for sex. I met a mother at a food bank in Oldham who had been sleeping with her landlord in order to keep a roof over her children’s heads. When she refused to have sex one week, he kicked them out despite her daughter being ill with flu. A woman in a refuge in the West Country had left her pimp husband after he filmed her being beaten up by a client. In Norwich, crack cocaine addiction is causing some women to do anything for cash in hand.

Some police officers believe that the increase in prostitution is being driven by the growth of online porn and the normalisation of fetishes such as S&M. This has led to men wanting to experiment more but feeling embarrassed to ask their partners. It’s a lot easier for them to find women now that they don’t have to search through cards in a phonebox but can flick through profiles online. Girls are flown in from eastern Europe and expected to perform to pay for their families back home.

The police have so many rape cases, both current and historical, as well as domestic abuse cases, that crime arising out of paid-for sex seems mild by comparison. But for every Belle de Jour or Julia Roberts character who says “We say who, we say when, we say how much”, there are hundreds of exploited women being used or trafficked in scenes more reminiscent of the Jezebel’s brothel in The Handmaid’s Tale

This is one of the worst abuses of power carried out on vulnerable women. It should be against the law to pay for sex even if the majority of men who do it say it’s because they’re lonely. Harvey Weinstein may have been lonely too but that shouldn’t be an excuse for his behaviour. Some young women in the MeToo movement, which went global after his fall from grace, make the mistake of thinking that sex work can be liberating and empowering for those caught up in it, while campaigning fiercely against relatively minor infringements of women’s rights." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/criminalising-punters-is-the-only-way-to-curb-prostitution-hf8fwjjtd

Just read it as well (well I've read the article ) and the sample size was 72 men!!!!

So from a sample of 72 selected men you have deduced that 1:3 randomly selected men are rapists.

Okaaaaayyyyyy

@Rocco: That's true, lots of genderists use the writings of Judith Butler to "prove" that the sexes are social constructs and not real, and Judith Butler writes so complicated most people don't understand it.

Genderism is a bit like male medicine before they discovered bacteria. Every midwife had enough common sense to wash her hands after touching a corpse and before sticking her hand up a vagina, but the doctors were so very clever they didn't even believe the first male doctor who suggested there miiight be a connection between women dying in the hundreds in a specific ward and the medicine students going there to stick their hands into vaginas after dissecting the corpses of other women.

Only intellectuals, indeed, can be the specific kind of dumb that is required to ignore what is right in front of their eyes in favour of something that's being touted as the newest scientific discovery of the year by their colleagues and in their books.

Ever heard the saying there are some ideas so dumb that only an intellectual could believe them? Ideology does that, it puts a filter in the mind where what is seen in the real world has to be twisted into something else to match the ideology.

It’s easier to convince people of bullshit if you can flatter them into thinking that believing it makes them smarter than everyone else.

Quick review of the literature, via google scholar, using gender neutral terms, "psychology of violence"

First article is "Violent Men:An inquiry into the psychology of violence" a review of a seminal work.

There are quite a few DV studies here, as well as sexual violence articles. I found this peer-reviewed gem:

"Our review largely supports the contention of feminist theory that gender matters—but we would go further and say that what really matters is power; gender matters because it is so highly correlated with power. We propose that, due to cultural factors that typically ascribe higher status to the male gender, and men's greater size and strength compared to women (on average), women are more likely than men to encounter contextual factors that disempower them and put them in situations—such as sexual abuse—that increase their risk of poor outcomes."

Caldwell, J. E., Swan, S. C., & Woodbrown, V. D. (2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 42-57.

scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=psychology+of+violence&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

What’s your point then weetabix ?

Do you think that males don’t pose a threat to females?

It shouldn’t be up to us to prove that males are a threat to be allowed sex seggragation it should be up to males to prove that they aren’t a threat before we let them in our space.