Middle ground

[HDDD]

I've been trying to follow conversations online in regard to gender critical thought, pronouns, selfID, transrights, lesbian erasure etc. And all I can find is extreme views on both sides. Is there a middle ground? Is it here? Is Twitter too toxic? I want to be informed not screamed at.

Thanks for coming back and reading the break it down thread. Women here are amazingly generous with their time and knowledge. Don't be put off by the sometimes somewhat robust style. I cringe when I look back on my first post in FWR a few years ago. Its a real learning experience here.

I think posters are getting annoyed with the term ‘middle ground’ because of a previous thread, discussing a horrible person’s response to the death of our wonderful feminist Magdalen. MNHQ made a wrong call, but graciously acknowledged that. But people are still smarting.

We’re also used to disingenuous posters, so that’s why you got the responses you did. Hang in there, you’ll learn that the TRAs don’t believe in a middle ground. They want EVERYTHING their way

There's also a sense of "well, obviously, no-one is REALLY saying xyz, so let's calm down and stop exaggerating the other side's viewpoint". Then you realise, yes, actually, lots of people ARE really saying xyz. And believe it.

xyz = anything that makes you think 'hang on a minute, that's quite a jump'. All TW are literally W in every sense, any person who self-ids will be welcomed into the opposite-sex prison, etc.

Most on MN don't want to discuss "middle ground" as you can see from the responses, interspersed with some attempting to answer your question. It shouldn't fall to women to lead the way on compromising, thats for the oppressor class to twig.

The thing is, although ‘call yourself what you want, live how you want’ sounds like a nice compromise, @HDDD, in practice it means a male bodied individual in a shelter for abused women, crowing on twitter about walking around topless, comparing their boobs to those of the abused and traumatised women, and flaunting their male genitalia in tight underwear. This person is living how they want - and doesn’t care a fig for the abused women he is retraumatising.

Or it leads to male bodied scouts identifying as female and wanting to sleep in the tents with the biological girls.

Or Male bodied adults who have grown up with all the physical advantages being Male brings, identifying as female and dominating in female sports when they had been also fans in men’s sport.

Or Male bodied individuals identifying as female and lesbian and heaping abuse on biologically female lesbians who do not want penetrative sex with their ‘lady dick’.

It leads to children being given puberty blockers that will leave them sterile, with underdeveloped genitalia (so NO way back if they decide they are not trans), and that have been shown to cause osteoporosis and damage to the growing brain - during their educational years!

That is why the middle ground is not a safe place.

The possible compromise is easy, create a third mixed sex space or service.

Inebriati has it.

The underlying principle does need drawing forth though, if you want to resolve the issue to your own satisfaction inside your own mind, OP.

Set aside the idea of "right" and "wrong" for a moment. Everyone thinks "I am right and you are wrong". It's a basic fundamental human tendency.

Reframe it as something else, so you can understand what the underlying issue is and see how to resolve it. And take the sexually dimorphic reality of bodies out of it a moment. Focus on the mind, just for now.

Each side has a psychological need to feel as though they are physically safe. And each side also has a psychological need to feel as though they're not under psychological attack. Everyone has these needs, they're universal human needs.

Both sides feel psychologically unsafe because we're in an open warfare situation over the words. One side gives precedence to the feeling of physical safety, and the other gives precedence to the feeling of psychological safety.

We're effectively stuck in an increasingly polarised argument over whether physical needs or psychological needs take precedence. One's position in this argument is ultimately determined by the sexed reality of one's body.

Until one steps back, and realises that's not a question of which side is right. It's a question of how everyone's tandem streams of psychological and physiological needs can best be accommodated.

It only feels like it's a tricky and complex and nuanced problem because you're asking yourself the wrong question, OP.

And the only reason we haven't got a third, mixed-sex option available already is because people's brains lie to them about what their psychological needs are, and the my behaviour means I am a woman lie is being indulged on a mass scale. Same as it always has been.

The middle ground is the patriarchal status quo. We won't smash it by finding a way to cling to it. And if we don't defend our own needs, they won't do it for us. So we hold the line on single-sex space, and wait for them to fixate on something else.

The vociferously activist trans women don’t want a third, mixed sex space. They want to invades women’s spaces

And also as "third" spaces would invariably become mens as it is women who value our segregated spaces more. Kind of how things were before we had single sex spaces in the first place.

The 'third' space idea means that the women's space becomes even more desirable to TRAs as it will be the gold-standard of womanhood to qualify for it, and it will be targeted.
They want to make us acknowledge them as 'women', not find solutions for them to exist as feminine men who want/need(?) a safe space.

They've... turned the efficacy of the socialisation process into an identity, haven't they?

That's what they're pointing at when they're using the words "gender identity".

Sex isn't assigned at birth, it's assigned at conception.

But something's assigned at birth. That something is the flavour of gendered socialisation.

But it all falls apart and doesn't make sense, because they're conceiving of it a thing instead of an ongoing process.

A noun, rather than a verb.

(And, in fairness, both sides forget that socialisation is an ongoing process. It doesn't happen just once, when you're small. It keeps happening and happening and happening, every time your mind interacts with another mind.)

"Gender identity" is the way your mind has been warped and moulded and grown up around gendered socialisation. They didn't fit the socialisation process applied to their sex, and they think a noun is the problem.

Gender isn't a noun. It's a verb. That's what they don't understand.

(The fact that they don't want a third space is all the proof you need that it's all about a psychological need, not a physical one. Literally, all in the mind.)

I think we’re already IN the middle ground.

Some women’s rights were compromised back in 2004 when they introduced the GRA.

Middle ground is where both sides are making some compromises. So women don’t have completely male free spaces because some medically screened male transitioners are already included.

What TRAs are now pushing for is to move away from the middle ground to a place where any man who wants women’s rights can have them by signing a form.

I think that’s where your error lies, OP. We have already conceded the middle ground only nobody told us. And fortunately for the TRAs it wasn’t very noticeable, not many objected, and now that is being used to push for everything.

We have already conceded the middle ground only nobody told us.

No. We didn't concede it. It was never ours to concede.

The middle ground between the trenches isn't no-man's land. It's all-man's land by default. Because they've got built-in guns and we haven't.

Tyro, can you use simple English please. I have no idea what you mean.

gender is not 'assigned at birth'
I'm against self ID. I think women's spaces need to stay women's spaces.
I think call yourself what you want - live how you want but don't tell me what to call you.
I'm afraid you will find that they are extreme views and it makes you a terf.
You hold the same views as many of the women here. We aren't extremists, we are fed up of being gaslighted and having our rights threatened and eroded.
The third space compromise option has been soundly rejected by the TRAs. They demand capitulation and have no interest in compromise.
I'm glad you've found the educational threads. I have learnt so much from the amazing women here.

AnyOldPrion that is one of the hardest requests anyone could ever make of me. But I will try to use simple English.

I'm thinking of a warzone analogy. Think trenches.

In one trench there's the feminists. We've got an ideological position - that women are human beings, basically - and we're digging our heels in.

In the other trench there's ... I don't know, call them meninists. The people whose behaviours are pushing the boundaries of male dominance. They're currently doing it in sports, they've already done it with birth certificates. They did for toilets in 2004 with the GRA and now that we've noticed they're doubling down on it.

What's between the trenches?

The patriarchal status quo.

Each side pulls in opposite directions until the whole thing snaps back and finds a new patriarchal equilibrium.

In one trench, nobody has a gun. Nobody has the weapon that can neutralise a member of the opposition by physically overpowering it and violating the boundaries of its body.

In the other trench, they have guns built into their bodies. They let people from the "middle ground" in, if those people are willing to fight for them, and in the name of equality they've started letting in women who are willing to fight for them; but the guns are ultimately pointed at the female sex.

We can't go over the top into the middle ground without risking getting shot. Which means the middle ground is under their dominion. It's theirs.

When I say it was never ours to concede, I mean that men control the middle ground. They always have, and they continue to do so.

This has come to mind many times the past few days.

"Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
You take a step forward and he takes a step back.
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man."

Thank you Creepster, I think that was the 'simple English' version of the point I was aiming to convey!

The 'injustice' is the reality of the sexed body. They're bigger and they have a built in rape weapon. All the men in the middle ground are mostly operating on a concealed-carry policy. They always have that fallback option.

I've seen a few people recently say they learnt about the idea of the Overton window from FWR.

Who determines the point at which the Overton window is set? Men. That is the essence of patriarchy.

I tried to find that middle ground on twitter when I was a trans ally and just expressed concern that whilst I understood the trans position I thought maybe we still needed to use the word women in some public health messages to make sure we reached women with limited English explaining my personal reasons for knowing this is a problem. I got abuse and put on terfblocker which is a problem for me professionally. Made me really see there's no middle ground. There's what men want and will take through abuse violence and fear and what women try to defend against a stronger and more ruthless opponent.

TRAs do not want third spaces, they insist that they are the actual sex they want to be, that they are completely believable as that sex, and that they belong in the single sex spaces put in place for women.

And the increase in rapes and assaults and murders committed by "women" is women's problem to solve, now.
And finding room in sports for these "women" is women's problem to solve, now.

Even though the vast majority of women don't believe these "women" are women.

Men have dumped them in our lap. Anti-feminists think it's hilarious.

We've allowed some of it to happen because we've been too polite. We've accepted the odd individual based on them being well-behaved or sad or having tried hard or whatever. Because to reject them would be mean.

Now we've given up too much ground and the law is being changed in effect without the actual law having been changed. Self-id isn't legal but is happening. Provision of single-sex toilets is a legal requirement but that is being ignored. Misgendering isn't illegal but as things stand it might as well be, because organisations have decided it.

We need to be challenging all this overreach and bring clear about where our red lines are is the only way to do that. Unfortunately that quite often looks like an unwillingness to compromise, whereas as has already been pointed out, the goalposts have already been moved several times without our consent.

the goalposts have already been moved several times without our consent.

Yes. And important to keep in mind, any 'middle ground' compromise is not the end, it will not be a case of the TRA lobby being satisfied and stopping there. As demonstrated multiple times and openly explained by people such as Whittle and listed in lobby manifestos, (Action for Trans Health is an interesting example) each gain is just the opening gambit for the next target, the next gain. Salami tactics.

HDDD many of us started where you did, I've name changed a few times so it's unlikely to happen but I would hate to have some of my original posts quoted back at me. I was so naive.

I would hate to have some of my original posts quoted back at me. I was so naive.

I would assume there are a lot of us here who have had our eyes open.

We need to hold the line on the name-change facility. We need to dig our heels in hard and never back down.

It allows us the space to fuck up the first time, or a few times, or as many times as we need, and still come back and try again.

They're going to push back on it eventually. We need to be ready.

Of course there is a middle ground - it's called transphobic.

Here's an example of middle ground - adults should have the right to cosmetically modify their bodies with hormones and surgery. But minors (18 years and under) should be supported in their gender dysphoria through therapy, DBT in particular.

Oh the horror! Oh, all the dead trans kids I just created with that suggestion! I obviously hate gender dysphoric kids (I have two :))

So go and ask the TRA's to find middle ground, because I have zero trouble finding it.

I'll build on JanesKettle to give another example of middle ground.

It should be considered cosmetic modification, like piercings and tattoos. Not falling within the remit of the NHS. There's nothing medically wrong with the body itself.

If it's ever to be covered by the NHS, a long-term and genuine engagement with therapy, particularly DBT, must be a prerequisite.

If Jane's version kills transkids, then my version would have killed me. As someone who would have met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, I'm fine with that, because the new me would be better able to function than the old one. It wouldn't be stuck in a perpetually descending spiral.