This is a good thread about female trans allies

[Doyoumind]

twitter.com/overpow_erin_g/status/1156003798898241543?s=19

Thoughtful insights into how some women get drawn into the wrong side of the debate.

No, I am not being obtuse I am reading that you base your reasons for 'matching up' to being a woman and identifying as such on your experience not any particular criteria and as you won't clarify criteria for woman/women I was hoping, for want of clarity, to hear details of this experience upon which we may define woman.

Bernard I live in hope! There are long lists of people who have quite rightly been condemned for appropriating the dress and culture of tribes and nationalities which they do not belong to. The condemnation always starts from the base that those tribes or nationalities were subject to oppression by the same powerful forces who are now choosing to appropriate their identity, culture, traditions, dress, etc., and yet there is definitely no similarity when applied to gender identity, no, absolutely not, no way.

RosesAndRaindrops

And yet most people are still saying, you’re not! If there is no longer an accepted definition of the word woman, then nobody can identify as one. Which I think is the ultimate point.

I'm not sure nationalities are a good comparison. It is possible to change nationality.

Arnold I agree it is possible to change nationality, a process has to be gone through to do that and in some instances the request will be refused. It is not possible to just identify as a particular nationality and expect laws, cultures, and social norms within that nationality be removed or re-written in favour of the person self identifying and in detriment to those who are that nationality. In a number of countries there are very strict rules that someone must abide by if they wish to change their nationality.

Regarding the gender identity question, sorry, but I'm going to link to another Twitter thread

twitter.com/Number1SCUM/status/1156144736714891264?s=19

Ha. From that thread to this thread:

● A person’s GI determines fashion, disposition, personality traits and temperament.
● Gender identity does not mean ‘personality’ though.

And:

● Everyone is born with a ‘gender identity’. This is an special property unique to each individual.
● Not everyone has a 'gender identity' (agender people exist) and you can have multiple of these ‘gender identities’.

It's a mirror image Lang! So nice to see it listed so clearly and succinctly in that Twitter thread.

@BernardBlacksWineIceLolly

Yeah sorry it was in response to datun's comment that you can't base laws and protocols in something you can't fully explain, but of course you can if the endpoint is clear. Ie. you want to divorce your husband (but can't explain why your feelings have changed) or you want to change gender (but are not sure why you have feelings of identity).

I haven't read the whole thread (sorry) I am procrastinating again and shouldn't be here!

But this:

So true Jenni, If a person sits down in a room with Nazis, they too are a Nazis. T£RFs are in bed with the right wing fash and American Christian Evangelists, they shout for the patriarchy -THEY ARE THE BADDIES!

Sounds like it was written by and 11 year old, it is an uncritical, immature assessment of how political views and alignment work. It is the comment of someone who has a lot of growing up and learning to do before they can competently and effectively comment on politics. So a representative of a great deal of Twitter (as far as I can see).

I read so many intelligent women and men on Twitter but most of the noise is from people like the one who made the comment above, they are the sheep in Animal Farm, they read the new rules and parrot them without ever examining them.

Anyway what I wanted to comment on was the twitter thread but unfortunately the tweets are now protected - what was the gist of their position on women who become allies (pretty please )

Ha. From that thread to this thread:

● A person’s GI determines fashion, disposition, personality traits and temperament.
● Gender identity does not mean ‘personality’ though.

And:

● Everyone is born with a ‘gender identity’. This is an special property unique to each individual.
● Not everyone has a 'gender identity' (agender people exist) and you can have multiple of these ‘gender identities’.

_

The above from Lang's post especially the first two bullet points are just pure comedy. Perhaps we should start a fundraiser for dictionaries for the people of Twitter - sounds like some people need them.

You can't base laws on something you can't describe, has no basis in reality and some people have it some people don't. Some people change it on the hour. Or A few times a week.

Some people acquire it late in life. Some people have always had it. Some people acquire it, and then rapidly dispense with it. And then often claim it didn't exist in the first place.

Some people have never even heard of it. Some people say it does not exist and some people say it's very existence is something you should not question, or even ask about, you bigot.

How can anyone identify as anything if there are no meanings for things other than what any individual decides it is.

It's a miracle that the human race has survived for millions of years without us understanding that the concepts of man and woman are just feelings in peoples heads that can't be defined. How silly of those ancient people!

I think in the electronic age our identities have in a way exploded, we have so many. Maybe its a reaction to living in societies far larger than we are really suited to?

I'd argue that communication via the Internet has disembodied humans. They have in a way merely become voices in space rather than having a physical presence in many ways.

It allows the indulgence of fantasy and the suspension of reality which your physical body constrains you with.

But.

You can not escape reality and I think there is a tension between the self on the Internet and the self in real life for some people.

It is extreme escapism from a reality where you are treated in a certain way based on your physical presence.

As I say though this suspension of reality is merely an indulgence of fantasy and whilst you might be freed from gender stereotypes to a certain extent via the Internet, it also serves to reinforce them and create this polarisation in what is perceived to be feminine and what is perceived to be male.

When it comes to where real life meets the internet that world doesn't exist. Women still ultimately are vulnerable because if their physical being. Thus sex and sex based protections are still not only relevant but perhaps even more important because of a rise in toxic masculinity and also the fog and deception that hiding behind a screen can create.

Safeguarding becomes MORE not less important in this context.

I think it striking how much Internet usage and gender identity are intertwined in various ways. I don't think it a coincidence.

It also helps to explain the belief that your identity or soul can be in the wrong body because you in a sense have a separate online persona (who maybe what you regard as your true self) which is different and separate to your real life persona.

But this is about the isolating effect and destruction of real life communities. It leaves a lot of people 'disconnected' and lacking a sense of belonging.

Ive been online in communities since 1997 and started to meet people in 1998. Over the years I've met hundreds of people through the Internet, including my husband.

And whilst it's fun and exciting and fills a void, it isn't a substitute for real life contact with people. It can be incredibly intense but it only goes so far and unless there is regular in life contact I do think it's missing something that can't be replaced through a screen. It retains this sense of unreality and distance. I'm perhaps 'out the otherside' of those type of relationships for that reason. They aren't as fulfilling as having a partner or a family when all is said and done.

And I think that as you hit a certain age, and have less time for online stuff this does become particularly relevant. It would produce a natural generational divide but not just because of when the technology was widely available but also because of where priorities in life lie at certain ages.

It's this fantasy element which I think is potent and pervasive. And I think it can be sinister at times which we need to be mindful of. The internet is viewed as some sort of liberating force and utopia I think that has merit, but it also has this very dark underbelly too. Few really want to admit it though.

I think the question of why gender identity has sprung up RIGHT now in this era has to sit within this.

My sibling and I were very much early adopters and I don't really know many people who were into online communities and how that crossed over into real life relations before us. I do think it relevant.

I think having taken on a male online identity and been treated very differently to the way I'm used to its very tempting to want to carry that over into real life.

It isn't actually possible though.

Look at any legislation - it will contain long lists of definitions of terms contained in that legislation. We even have a whole act of parliament devoted to interpretation of terms in legislation, the Interpretation Act 1978.

If we can't define words we can't effectively legislate.

If individuals feel themselves to have a gender identity, if like Roses they feel their gender identity "matches" their biological sex, that's fine if that's how they feel.

But I have yet to see anything approaching a clear definition of what gender identity means, let alone what it means to say that gender identity "matches" or "doesn't match" biological sex.

Yet governments are being asked to legislate to protect rights not just to hold the view that one has a gender identity, but to say that gender identity itself is fact.

We rightly legislate to protect the rights of religious people to hold and express their religious views.

We don't legislate (not being a theocracy) that those religious beliefs themselves are fact.

If gender identity has nothing to do with biology, why are female bodied people assumed to have the gender identity of a woman?

Shouldn’t there be equal numbers of male women and female women?

you can't base laws and protocols in something you can't fully explain, but of course you can if the endpoint is clear. Ie. you want to divorce your husband (but can't explain why your feelings have changed) or you want to change gender (but are not sure why you have feelings of identity)

In the case of changing gender the end point is, in fact, not at all clear

no-one seems able to explain what a masculine or feminine gender look like.

Unless you'd like to give it a go @Maniak ?

I'm going to partially repeat myself from earlier below because it seems quite relevant to where we're at in this discussion.

Saying TW have a right to their own spaces, refuges, healthcare, protections in law, privacy, dignity, etc. as do girls/women is not hate and is not indicative of transphobia. It is the pragmatic solution for the safety and dignity of girls/women (and TW for that matter). Transgressing personal boundaries harms everyone - including those transgressing as the denial of the identity/existence of one group and their boundaries nullifies the validity of the other.

Transgender individuals exist but their gender identity does not justify appropriation of the opposite sex's resources or existence. Transgender individuals' identities as a group have a gender class in addition to their sex class. Campaigning for resources for their group(s) (TM & TW separately or combined) is excellent and necessary; campaigning to make women's resources include biological males is misogyny. Identifying as something doesn't translate into the reality of being something.

Centering women in feminism is not transphobic.

what woman are is under threat from what people say they feel.

And who benefits from 'woman' being removed from any biological meaning? (51% of the planet who have a specific biology from the moment of conception in common and absolutely nothing else in common, with woman/female being the word for that)

It's solely to permit men to be shoehorned into the definition of women. That's all. That's it. That's what it's about.

It does not stop the issues that women have for their physical being. It just dilutes and hides those problems politically, linguistically, legally and socially.

It does not benefit women in any way. It actively, massively throws their interests back decades in terms of women's rights, it's an enormous threat to women, particularly vulnerable women.

But it benefits some men.

We're back to the OP.

Maniak your use of divorce as an example of basing laws on things you can't fully explain doesn't really work because there are five legal grounds for divorce:

Adultery
Unreasonable Behaviour
Desertion
Living Apart for more than 2 years
Living Apart for more than 5 years

Unreasonable behaviour can cover pretty much anything but it can be opposed by the other party, hence the case of Tini Owens.

divorce as an example of basing laws on things you can't fully explain

It's also based on the material, observable, demonstrable and repeatedly verifiable at any time reality of there being two people and a marriage certificate.

This is more like someone saying they want a legal divorce on the grounds that they have a strong internal feeling they are married, that marriage is more than just a ceremony and a legal certificate and a partner following due process, and has evolved beyond that limited reality and language definition, and that an internal and ineffable personal sense of marriage should be equally accepted in a court of law to gain them the same finished product that those with the material reality of divorce are entitled to.

Agree Michelle, that is exactly the level of twisting and circularity, and in their inestimable logic a partner of any description wouldn't be required at all so long as they identified with being married.

This is more like someone saying they want a legal divorce on the grounds that they have a strong internal feeling they are married, that marriage is more than just a ceremony and a legal certificate and a partner following due process, and has evolved beyond that limited reality and language definition, and that an internal and ineffable personal sense of marriage should be equally accepted in a court of law to gain them the same finished product that those with the material reality of divorce are entitled to.

Yes, and there are far more grounds to 'believe' marriage is more than that due process and legal position than there are to believe 'woman' is something beyond the shared biological reality of the large gamete producing half of humanity.

And indeed there are those who argue to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to co-habitees, which as a long term co-habiter I am absolutely opposed to as I can see the can of worms it would open up even if my own relationship has out-lasted many a marriage. It isn't all about me and I despair of others not being able to see other types of legislation are not all about them.

I can't get behind the narrative that people with a different experience of consciousness to you must be mentally ill. As mentioned earlier, there's no definable biological reason for people to be homosexual or bisexual. In terms of the logistics of human procreation, it doesn't make sense. And yet, we accept the reports of individuals that are on that path as unquestionable and inviolable. Why then go on to deny other powerfully intrinsic concepts such as a sense of gender just because you can't see how someone else feels and you personally don't feel the same way.

And in terms of the concept of a soul, indeed it cannot be denied that humans in all societies throughout history have believed in the concept of a soul that is individual from their physical form. This isn't indoctrination. It's a constantly repeating phenomena.

I also don't understand the resistance to exploring the concept of changing bodies. It's always repeated, oh that couldn't happen. Indeed it couldn't. But imagination is our only source of empathy with other human beings. Why not try to imagine how you would feel in a body that you don't identify with?

Taken from a Twitter thread today (the guy is speaking from materialist, democratic socialist perspective). By "social radical" he means what we tend to call Woke:

The liberation social radicals want is no liberty but simply licence & upheaval. If you see every element of human life that hasn't been autonomously chosen by the free-floating individual as a barrier or chain, you'll end up stripping away the layers of social life until there is nothing left except pure will, vice & power: the arbitrary & desocialised self. When you adopt a moral framework with no place for restraint or duty, this is inevitable. The assertion of the arbitrary desires of the individual, dressed up as rights (which will then inevitably conflict in irresolvable fashion), is no basis for a moral or political order.

twitter.com/CapelLofft/status/1156479172040110080