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Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?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

In a perverse sort of way feminism (or at least a certain brand of ot) largely created this situation we are discussing now.

I don't understand where you get this from, Rocco. Feminism is about dismantling gender stereotypes and doing away with gender altogether. Transactivism is about reinforcing gender - the opposite of feminism.

Materialist

I'd love to answer but as pointed out earlier, I lack the intelligence to do so.

Just catching up with this thread - ‘what do you call people with breasts? Women ‘ 😂 😂

What do you call people with breasts old crone? I call them women

A very male friend of mine died of breast cancer - that's what the oncologists called it and that's what he had.

A man getting breast implants is just a man who's made his breasts bigger.

Unisex toilets are a moot point though. I have only ever seen a unisex toilet that is a self contained room off of a main corridor.

I had to use a unisex toilet last week. One large room, lots of cubicles all with the M and F signs on all the doors, big trough down the middle of the room for washing.

I felt very, very vulnerable.

But if we're using bits of bodies to define the sexes - what do you call people with penises...?

wheetabixandshreddies was it you upthread who was giving out about people using breakfast cereals to drown out derailers?

Its very hard to pin point the sex of someone if you believe that a penis can be found on both sexes

Very true.
With most people, I can tell at a look from their face whether or not they have a penis and testicles.

But of course that's useless if you think anyone could have a penis.

And figures aren't what I base my life on so I don't know of specific scenarios where I can say this makes a difference.

Then why do you obsess about whether it is 5% or 30% if it means nothing to you? Coincidentally, I base my life and profession on figures regularly.
Which is why it is absoltutely clear to me that it does not make a qualitative difference whether 1% or 5% or 30% of males are rapists, when it comes to the question of abandoning sex segregated spaces. It will put women at risk either way.

Wheet, the statistic 1:10 males are rapists isn't "made up". It's disputed, but not made up.

The point that the PP made was that 1:10 of randomly selected men were rapists - all anyone is now quoting is that 1:10, of a group of college students when asked a specific question said that they would (not that they had).

If the original post was discussing that then that is an entirely different discussion.

You are all jumping on me because I dared to question a completely made up assertion. Why have none of you calked out the poster who made it up? Why not accuse them of derailing by making up a statistic?

I'm not just going to blindly accept a statistic (as none of you do either when on other threads a poster cites data that you don't agree with.)

Oh this reminds me of an awful experience I had on holiday last month.
It was a unisex toilet in a bar where there was sinks outside and then one cubicle with a toilet in, i has gone to the toilet on my own and there was a queue of about 6 men (all much much bigger than me) waiting outside for the toilet.
I was wearing a play suit and so had to take it off the top half of my clothes to have a pee and I actually couldn’t pee because it was really quiet in the toilet and I knew they’d be able to hear me and would know it was me peeing.

The men were all very polite and lovely, nothing happened but I felt so unbelievably uncomfortable and it was really obvious the men did too.

I don't understand where you get this from, Rocco. Feminism is about dismantling gender stereotypes and doing away with gender altogether. Transactivism is about reinforcing gender - the opposite of feminism.

Rocco is talking of so-called liberal feminism.

They call themselves feminists, whether or not we like it.

I'm not just going to blindly accept a statistic

Right, you are obsessing about them. Even though figures mean nothing to you. Go figure.

Then why do you obsess about whether it is 5% or 30% if it means nothing to you?

Because I am not going to debate an issue based on "X% of Y" when it is clearly made up.

You asked me to give you a figure at which point certain places become unsafe - my answer is that I don't have a figure where I would deem somewhere unsafe. If you said the risk of something happening was 1 in a million but it happened to me wouldn't make me feel any better would it?

My decision on whether something looks like a threat to me is based on what I know at that point. Not based on theoretical risk because for me, as an individual, that is pretty meaningless.

womanmeanssomething.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/A-Longitudinal-Analysis-of-Media-Reports-at-Target-Stores.pdf

What do you think of this Weetabix?

Thanks, Hestia. I'll admit I don't really know what 'liberal feminism' is. Feminism to me is the sort I first met in the 70s. It's only since I've been on here in the last year or so that I realised that there are now different types of feminism. I'll stick to the one I know - it seems to make more sense - it's all about women.

You asked me to give you a figure at which point certain places become unsafe - my answer is that I don't have a figure where I would deem somewhere unsafe. If you said the risk of something happening was 1 in a million but it happened to me wouldn't make me feel any better would it?

But you do understand that politics and risk assessment are based on statistics and not on an individual's feeling, don't you?

Also, if you can't think in statistic categories, as you say yourself, why does it matter to you if it is 10% or 5% of males who are rapists? Do you contest the 5%, too?

Because I am not going to debate an issue based on "X% of Y" when it is clearly made up.

That would imply that you dp debate an issue based on X% of Y that is clearly not made up. Which totally contradicts your point that you never discuss anyting based on % no matter what. So, which is it?

The point that the PP made was that 1:10 of randomly selected men were rapists - all anyone is now quoting is that 1:10, of a group of college students when asked a specific question said that they would (not that they had).

No, one out of three said that he would. If you insist on being nitpicky, I'll do the same.
I patiently explained to you why it was 1 in 3. Go and re-read if you still don't understand. 1 in 3 of those men freely admitted he would rape.
You might not call those men rapists, I do. And they are certainly not safe to be around, because they obviously hate women.

And anyway, if you don't care how many males are rapists, you want to force us to accept them into our very private spaces even if 50% of them are rapists, then I don't know why you want to discuss this study, which you were too lazy to google yourself.
(I knew this would happen, that's why I didn't want to do the work for you. I know you would just find an excuse to dismiss it)

If college students aren't random enough for you, you should stop ... doing pretty much everything, as college students are assumed by science to be representative of the rest of the population in most contexts.

You can also stop eating vegetables, I think the main proof that eating vegetables is good for your health is this study they did only on nurses. Which if you aren't a nurse obviously has nothing to do with you.

Me too Old Crone, I'm guessing you may have read this back in the day?

www.bl.uk/spare-rib

No one is jumping on you, wheet. They're jumping on your assertion.

The 10% is not a made up statistic. That statistic was published in a per reviewed journal, the JAMA, peer-reviewed AF.

Your assertion is essentially, "that stat was pulled out of your ass, you liar". It was not.

While technically you're trying to prove something by being less crude than how I just summarized your technique, that 10% is not a made up stat. I can also provide you with a link to the criticism of the 1 in 3 stat. Also not made up. Disputed, not made up.

That's what peers do. They dispute. I didn't find the word "disproven" in what I read.

You were wrong in your approach. None of us are smart enough to be right all the time, but if the paint is wet all around you, reasonable people don't start complaining that the corner they're in isn't real.

But you do understand that politics and risk assessment are based on statistics and not on an individual's feeling, don't you?

Yes, but you asked me specifically for the figure that makes something unsafe. I have no figure.

This logical inconsistency is utterly baffling.

That would imply that you dp debate an issue based on X% of Y that is clearly not made up. Which totally contradicts your point that you never discuss anyting based on % no matter what. So, which is it?

When have I said I never discuss anything based on a %? You asked me to quantify a % at which something stopped being safe - I don't have a figure.

What I'm not going to do is debate an issue based on a made up statistic.

I'm guessing you may have read this back in the day?

Occasionally, but I have to admit I wasn't much of a feminist activist or theorist. Feminism was just there in the background in my teens and made me realise that my choices didn't have to be limited because I was female, despite what my more sexist teachers told me.

HestiaParthenos

I don't need to re read anything thank you though I think you might.

Link me the study that shows, as you first said, that 1:10 randomly selected males were rapists.

Until you do, you made it up.

I think it's quite clear that everyone else agrees too because they all keep saying well, agree it's 1:20. If they knew of they study that you were referring to they would be backing you up.

This logical inconsistency is utterly baffling.

Yes. Blame my lack of intelligence