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Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?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

They are already exploring womb transplants, indeed I think a baby has already born in this way
To women. Female ones.

Societal acceptance does not always correlate with things being better. Although there are voices raising concerns, judged on its actions, society currently accepts that clothing should be cheap and short lived and produced in environments which are not legal in this country. Society accepts that our rubbish is shipped around the world to be dealt with and that thousands of children get driven short distances to school in cities making the air toxic for them and their classmates.

Some trans women (by the current definition - the umbrella is too large) are given gender dysphoria during gestation, but it doesn't give them female anatomy or the ability to secrete female hormones for themselves. It has a biological cause. It is not female biology.

Are you trying to say that gender dysphoria has a known biological cause? Because I'm not aware of any evidence for that.

If there’s no gender there’s no transgender.

Transgenderism is the resurgence of gender after decades of deconstructing it.

THIS.

If society moves to a place where there’s no gender and we can all merrily present as whoever we think we are, I expect those XY people will find another way to ensure XX are not deemed to be equal ( all genders are equal, but some are more equal than others).

I don't think theres any scientific evidence that hormone levels in the uterus cause gender dysphoria is there? I think they ised to think that about homosexually didnt they and that has been pretty much debunked i favour of genetic predisposition and interaction with environment (like everything else)

I totally agree with calpop few pages back. I don’t think it is so much a generational issue, but an age issue.

I didn’t give much thought to many feminist issues pre pregnancy/ late 30’s. It was easy to forge a career and do all the things men did. I never felt discriminated against because of my gender and felt very much an equal. Sure, I saw some women have kids and make sacrifices, but it didn’t directly affect me and I didn’t really understand. I couldn’t imagine having a boring domestic disagreement with my partner about attributing domestic responsibilities, that just wasn’t my life.

Becoming pregnant and having a baby somehow can’t help but reduce you to your fundamental biology to a certain degree. Having to deal with all of the pressures of being a mother, the running of a household and returning to work as a mother can’t help but throw up many feminist issues.

It’s easy to be confidently idealistic in your 20’s. It’s a sad indictment of life that experience teaches us otherwise.

They are already exploring womb transplants, indeed I think a baby has already born in this way (unless I dreamt it), we have many children born to women past the menopause.

If this womb ‘transplant’ involved a man, yes, you dreamt it.

Stay off the cheese before bed time.

Men don’t have wombs. You can’t transplant an organ into a body that isn’t evolved for that organ. You can try implanting one but you can’t transplant one.

And it’s not just about sticking an organ into a body. You’d have to change the circulatory system in order to supply it with blood. You’d have to change the brain to regulate ovulation. You’d have to change skeleton structure to allow birth.

So that’s a new organ, new circulatory system, new brain and new bones - so what’s left of you?

And for what? To give birth to someone else’s children?

Because those eggs aren’t yours. Genetically they belong to the donor.

Who knows how society will view the function of procreation? Maybe it will be "A brave new world" with babies gestated in incubators in a laboratory or cloning will be fully utilised?

You DO know Brave New World was a dystopia, don’t you?

That the title itself was used ironically by Shakespeare?

There's something sad about witnessing desperation once it hits the level at which a dystopia is considered preferable to just admitting that women don't have cocks.

I totally agree with calpop few pages back. I don’t think it is so much a generational issue, but an age issue.

Im sat listening to Radio 4 In Our Time, discussing Mao.

Interesting to consider how in a single movement youth can be inspired idealistically which will in part be due to their age/life experiences & experience alongside some older adults seeking to personal power and gain.

There were cynical adults behind and benefiting from the Cultural Revolution too. But yeah, if you are a not very nice person who wants to foment social unrest in order to achieve questionable aims the young, idealistic, and naive tend to make the best foot soldiers.

But yeah, if you are a not very nice person who wants to foment social unrest in order to achieve questionable aims the young, idealistic, and naive tend to make the best foot soldiers.

Just as if you are not a very nice person and want to gaslight a significant number of vulnerable young people into believing that 'humans can change sex', 'deadnaming & misgendering is literal violence', and they have an over 50% liklehood of suicide then there will be powerful consequences in their behaviours.

The young people are being really badly failed by those adults with power who claim to represent them

calpop I wasn‘t aware the link between hormones and homosexuality was disproven? (Obviously not a monocausal link, but one pathway/contributor). I thought high testerone levels for female fetuses and some immune response by mum‘s body after preceding pregnancy with male, which caused some hormonal insensitivity of fetus to testosterone were still considered factors that correlated with homosexuality, no?

We are not necessary talking about those that are inspired to take part in a cultural revolution though, but widespread acceptance in mainstream society. Generally once comes before the other granted.

For trans women to be accepted as women in society in general, it has to become a mainstream view. A lot of young woman are unlikely to be active trans rights advocates, but may well be liberal enough to simply accept this position. However, given the passage of time and growing up to understand more of what being a ‘woman’ really means, the accepting view point is likely to be undermined.

The argument often is that trans rights impact on women’s rights. Without a true understanding of the importance of the latter, you can’t really grasp the former. And for me at least, the later didn’t solidify until much later in life.

I think the Karen White type incidents cut right through the "well this probably doesn't have any impact on me so I should be nice" socialization, because any woman can see what that means for all of us. Unless their job depends on not seeing it.

Shell shock infectious like measles - the condition that society has the most sympathy from the public - symptoms change and match movie symptoms as film became more accessible.

Please do watch if you have the time, I see similarities between desperate conscripted traumatised men who would do anything to cease having to continue fight in the trenches and the traumatised childhood survivors like Challenor and the Whittles of this world.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0brzl3w/wwis-secret-shame-shell-shock

I don’t disagree about the Karen White incidents, but these a part of a much more complex and nuanced debate. The extreme Karen White end is obviously rather black and white in my view, but as I understand it, is being rationalized on the other side of the debate as not so statistically significant (not that I am saying this is correct). It is some more of the nuanced impact that I feel resonates more with age. I may be wrong though and future generations may not revise their views based on future experiences. It’s just a viewpoint that makes sense to me.

It is 100 percent impossible that transgender philosophy will be accepted the world over. Even if the UK goes down this road, Pakistan, Singapore, Mali, Mongolia and most other countries will not. The majority of the world will continue to base its perceptions of male/female on material reality. The cultural basis for transgenderism will continue to be blindingly obvious. The elephant in the room

This is exactly what I was going to say.
Transgenderism is very much an anglosphere issue. Even parts of Europe don't have the TWAW mantra.
Denmark/Sweden/Netherlands etc take a very more rational approach.

It’s a bit like the hippy movement in the late ‘60’s where it was mainly University students who experienced the free love/ anti capitalist lyfestyle and my parent’s and most people lived more conventional lives.
There was a disconnect and a backlash to the hippy movement as it became more popular and visible to the mainstream media when starry eyed idealism meets reality.
Seriously does your friend not feel the extension of trans rights from 5,000 dysforic trans people to 50,000 self ID will will cause any problems for women?

The bloke on the Clapham omnibus is never going to bother pandering and worrying the way the woke Lib elite do. This will never wash with the general public.

If this goes through, there will be an inevitable rush of assaults, harassment, sexual offending, voyeurism against women and children, because a huge number of the people under the Stonewall umbrella and many others who will happily get under it for protection while offending know damn well they're not transwomen or women. Men won't write to their MPs about it, or worry about how the person with a penis identifies that day, they'll do what annoyed men do to other men who mess with them and their loved ones. Which the TRAs know well since they don't mess around with or argue with people with penises. If the government doesn't get a grip on this, then my forecast would be vigilantism returning, because that's what happens when the law ceases to protect or serve justice to people. People just take the law into their own hands.

The huge wave of compensation cases and a distraught generation of sterile, mutilated young adults, is also inevitable.

There is no way to make TWAW a reality without stifling, blurring and covering up what women are. That won't be sustainable for long without a huge great bloody mess. On the other hand, it's going to lead to a wide spread resurgence of women's rights/suffragetism that will make bra burning look like tea and cakes with the vicar. That may be the one plus that comes from it.

Asian countries that accept men presenting as women traditionally have a "third sex" such as the kathoui (so) in Thailand. These people are considered not men but not women either. It has worked forever.

knicknack quite.
The day the OED changes the definition of woman to "everyone who identified as one" is the day I will be bra-burning and dictionary burning.
The women's dictionary burning revolution may be next.

Which the TRAs know well since they don't mess around with or argue with people with penises. If the government doesn't get a grip on this, then my forecast would be vigilantism returning, because that's what happens when the law ceases to protect or serve justice to people. People just take the law into their own hands.

I agree. Take a look at this thread, people are happy for the police to become judge, jury and inflict the death penalty.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3437395-to-think-that-Labours-stance-on-moped-ramming-is-stupid

Professor Clara Greed is Professor of Inclusive Urban Planning

Brilliant speaker, 5 sentences all about how women couldn't possibly pee, poo or wash out a moon cup in front of a man.

One short sentence on how making the disabled a gender neutral toilet means a disabled person can't go the the loo at all. I can see why disabled provision is shocking compared to both men and woman's

A couple of generations ago a man wouldnt have know anything about sanitary protection, now it's quite acceptable and the norm for men to purchase them and know exactly what they are for. I hope that future generations of women can happily pee poo and wash out mooncups in front of a man.

Yeah I think this generations issues with gender neutral toilets will seem as inconceivable to future generations as many other firms of bigotry are to us now.

There's nothing complex or nuanced happening. Humans cannot change sex. Women have sex based rights for well founded reasons, and those reasons have not gone away.
The people who choose to believe that humans can change sex have also chosen to eradicate the ones who are non compliant instead of tolerating them. That is one marker of an authoritarian movement.