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Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?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

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

No, that is not what I asked. Clearly, as soon as you mix one group with another group that is statistically significantly more prone to violence/sexual violence, it becomes less safe for the less violent group.
We all know that males are statistically significantly more prone to violence/sexual violence than females, so the fact that end of sex segregation makes it less safe for women is settled.

The question that I wanted you to answer is, what % of males with proclivity to sexual violence/rape makes the end of sex segregation still acceptable to you, given you debated this number so hotly.

Alternatively, if that is easier for you, you can also just tell me what number of additional rapes per 1000 women you still find acceptable as a result of ending sex segregation.

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

Really? So calling me lacking in intelligence isn't jumping on me?

And that 1:10 statistic might apply to that study.

But that study does not assert that 1:10 randomly selected men is a rapist does it? Which is what the PP stated and then started back pedalling from.

Oh, Hestia I think weet is looking for screenshots.

Yes. Blame my lack of intelligence

Blame is a foolish game, people are talking and debating, it's a discussion.

When people say logical inconsistency maybe ponder a while, dont take the hump, its actually the argument that is being challenged, not your intelligence.

Weetabix
You're getting tiresome now. So I'll ask you a simple question. Do you think allowing males to enter female-only spaces where women and girls are vulnerable puts those women and girls in danger? Yes or no?

Weetabix:

You're getting tiresome now. you've been at this all day - and have been found out.

I'd recommend everyone ignore.

Trans women are not women.

Here’s the one in ten study

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2375127

Yes. Blame my lack of intelligence

I am simply starting to doubt that you are debateing in good faith. Nobody can not know that mixing a significantly more violent group with a significantly less violent group - particularly in settings where people are generally rather vulnerable - decreases safety for the less violent group.

This is not a matter of intelligence, frankly. This is possibly a matter whether one's cognitive dissonance allows one to acknowledge straightforward facts. Or a matter of not debating in good faith.

Here we are Bubonicpanic

do try to keep up with the discussion. You're coming across as not terribly bright, as well as utterly lacking in empathy. Doubt you're winning many supporters among the lurkers.

Addressed to me earlier in the thread. I think telling me that I'm not terribly bright is actually attacking my intelligence and not just my argument.

Again here’s the one in ten study

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2375127

I'd recommend everyone ignore

I am inclined to agree.

Back to topic: Future generations will always know the difference between female and male. It is so obvious you don't need any kind of sciene to know it.

Unless there's a robot apocalypse, obviously, but do we count robots as society?

Robots might still know that there were two sexes in mammals, but it isn't as important to them as to humans, so they might forget about it. If they do, they'll certainly also forget that the word "transwomen" ever existed, though.

do try to keep up with the discussion. You're coming across as not terribly bright, as well as utterly lacking in empathy. Doubt you're winning many supporters among the lurkers.

well feel free to have a sulk then

deepwatersolo

It's not a case of not debating in good faith. I have different views to you.

I don't agree with self ID. I have said that on every thread that I've been on. I don't think that unisex, single cubicle toilets are a problem. I don't think that little boys pose a threat to either safeguarding or dignity by accompanying their mums into the toilet.

Personally, I have no issue with a trans woman using the ladies toilets or changing rooms (and I know the next post will inform me that I can't consent on behalf of others - I am not. I am expressing my opinion).

So. That is what I think.

Really? So calling me lacking in intelligence isn't jumping on me?

Jesus wept, you brought your intelligence into this!

You said you lacked the intelligence to answer the questions we posed.

Personally, I have no issue with a trans woman using the ladies toilets or changing rooms (and I know the next post will inform me that I can't consent on behalf of others - I am not. I am expressing my opinion).

So on the basis that you don't mind, and other women would not accept this, do you agree that the best solution is for transwomen to be kept out, and use the men's, or a third, mixed sex space?

Well then wheetabix you are pretty much exactly on the same page as me.

I don’t agree with old school trans women using the toilets but I like it to be a ‘we are allowing you to use our toilets’ rather than a ‘we have to let anyone who says they’re a woman use our toilets’ type of situation.

I meant to say ‘I don’t mind old school trans women’ there

OP here.. wow it's moved on... 300 odd posts to catch up on 🙈 can anyone give me a shorter summary to help me join back in?

I personally think we should keep the female spaces as female spaces and make the Male spaces unisex unless they can provide an exemption fit with the equality act.
Basically what we have now but he other way round.

Hey interesting
Not a thin* that weetabix has written that’s for sure

Jeez ffs this thread
Weetabix tbh you kill every thread stone dead
Is this what you want

Its not civilised discussion.

AspieAndProud

No I was referring to a specific post that said that I "was not terribly bright".