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.

Christ MrG that's a hideous typo (I hope)

Late to the thread, need I read further, so apols if this has been picked up

This is how easy it is to become a T* sadly. You nailed it here OP:

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.

Just a few posts in, you have posted, what are called by some, extremist viewpoints of a t*.

...and there you have it.

I think I know what you are looking for OP. I am always on the look-out for articles and such that I feel I could give to someone who is a progressive and broadly sympathetic to inclusivity and such, to give them more information of context for what is at stake with all of this.

And it can be very difficult to find things that are appropriate. So often there are things that seem obvious to those who are immersed but seem strange or nasty, or unbelievable, to those who aren't, or the rhetoric is too strong, or they assume knowledge people don't yet have, or that the accept ideas they aren't yet sure about.

James Kirkup has written some that I have found were quite good, to the point, measured ,clear, and with no sense of personal anger or resentment which I think is important for that kind of communication.

I mean if you studied and attended well, and passed your life science classes, we're all t*s

All biologists, teachers that teach about the sexes and sexual reproduction.

Should that be gender reproduction? I heard someone say at a baby scan what gender is the baby?

Young people are using aesopian language. It comes not from a dictionary but in pursuit of an action.

I'm still thinking about holding the line and what's coming next. Not going into the reasoning because the words will sound mad.

We're digging in and trying to hold the line on "he" and "she" as sex designators. These are third-person pronouns. These are objects.

We'll know they understand we're not budging on this one, when they start gendering first-person pronouns. Calling it now: feminine and masculine forms of I are coming sooner or later. And they will eventually insist we all choose which gender of I we use. A sex designator of some sort will be applied, and we will be compelled to use it. The current neutral first-person-singular will be redefined as "transphobic".

I think call yourself what you want - live how you want but don't tell me what to call you.

This sounds fine except that those males who are choosing to call themselves women do demand that everyone should accept them as being factually women in all circumstances.

They may try but I will not be changing my first person pronoun.

HDDD

Maybe part of the problem is where you are looking for your information.

Twitter is not the place. Twitter is a battle ground and only used by a tiny, tiny amount of people. It isn't clear why any one bothers with it, as so much of it is in fact not just about facts and information but point scoring.

Unfortunately facebook groups can be like this as well.

It depends on whether you just want to keep up to date with different aspects of the issue as they come up in which case you could just follow A Woman's Place UK on facebook. And Fair Play for Women, Safe School Alliance and many others.

Too often on social media the arguement over the issues become about focusing on one individual as the embodiment of that.

So as you have found out unless you have got the time to keep tabs on all the individuals who may have tweeted this that or the other, you will find that those answering these tweets make no sense. It like landing in the middle of an arguement where you dont know any of the people who are being argued other.

Maybe it would be useful if mumsnet would allow this board to have its own pinned notice at the start of the board along with their own.

Not necessarily a thread but a list of suggested reading material plus a breakdown on often used phrases and acronym(?).

So when someone like the OP here asks a question someone can politely ask "have you read the FWR useful breakdown?" rather than immediately assume they are here to wind us up.

There is loads of useful information here, but only someone with a lot of time on their hands could even begin to plough through every thread to pull out the one nugget that might help explain.

Its not even as though you can link to a particular response as you can link to a particular post on facebook.

I'm honestly not interested in middle grounds or third spaces or waffling on about what the poor males who transgender might want or need. Don't care. Don't give a shit.

These are my twin aims:

*Women retain all the rights they currently have because even they are insufficient to achieve actual liberation from men.

*Child protection is not diluted because even what we have is insufficient to protect all children from abuse.

What happens outside of that for groups of adult males who feel they are in some way marginalised or oppressed is up to them to sort out and I don't see why they should make any claim on my time or attention.

Either you believe TWAW or you don't. It really is a binary choice.

Whilst I understand a lot of the points made on this thread about coming into the conversation late and people being tired of hearing certain things - I do think it's this logic that makes it so hard to relate to the POV's expressed on here a lot of the time.

It's not really a binary issue. I don't, in all honesty, believe TWAW, however I do believe that dysmorphia exists in many forms and if an adult person deeply struggles with that and it would go away by allowing them to present themselves as they (whether wrongly or rightly) see themselves, then it is the kindest thing to do to let them get on with it without cruelty or mockery. On the other hand, the issues with them then being able to self ID and enter into women only spaces as a result are obvious and abundant.

Yes, I get it, TRA demand those things and offer no middle ground, but there are people whose opinion DOES fall into a middle ground, and as someone who feels that way this thread alone has been the most enlightening I've read on the topic because normally there is no space allowed at all for people whose views do not fall on one extreme or the other, even if those people agree with you on many accounts.

I think the middle ground is pretty clear. Accepting that individuals have the right to live however they want but they don’t have the right to expect others to accept their beliefs. This would involve not discriminating against people who choose to live in a way that confirms with the opposite sex’s gender stereotypes/identify as the opposite gender, offering these people a gender neutral option if aligning themselves with their sex makes them uncomfortable (e.g. a gender neutral loo), using appropriate pronouns for gender as this isn’t going to harm anyway and such like. Conversely, trans people should not be intruding into spaces designated for the opposite sex/making claims that they are the opposite sex (deals with lesbian erasure as well). It would also be nice if they stopped calling people names for not agreeing with their personal beliefs.

That was my comment and I stand by it, and stand by it not being an "extremist" statement.

Yes, dysphoria is a real condition. But a man with dysphoria remains just that - a man with dysphoria.

And it matters massively because of the practical consequences. If you believe TWAW, then a rapist with penis should be in a women's prison, a middle-aged late transitioner scooping medals in women's sports really is just an immensely talented woman.

You can want to be kind to people with genuine dysphoria without thinking they become women, or that"kindness" is best exhibited by pandering to their every demand and colluding in their delusions.

You can even approach it by analogy with religious tolerance: believe any batshit theory about inner gender essences you want, it's a free country. Just don't try to foist those beliefs or their consequences on me.

But - law of excluded middle - either TWAW or they are not. There is no wishy washy in between position.

With you on that barbara

No wish washy stuff

You can’t change your sex.

And if you believe they're not: what has it got to do with women? If some men are awful to their brethren who have dysphoria, go and tell them about this middle ground. I'm honestly not interested.

I wish someone who espouses the "extremes on both sides" would properly explain what the gender critical 'extreme' looks like and why it is objectionable.

As far as I can tell, it consists of
'females exist, we deserve to be recognised, we have the right to say no to men, lying and pretending is bad, compelling others to play along with a lie is wrong'

The middle ground always seems to be demanding women compromise their integrity, truthfulness, safety, privacy, dignity, or recognition by waiving one of the so-called extreme principles.

Am I missing something? Is it really that to speak truthfully and with integrity is extreme and something to dispense with to be seen as pleasingly moderate?

09:30 Novembersbean, it's fine having a middle ground opinion, but a middle ground reality would be a lot harder to achieve in the face of the trans onslaught on the rights of girls and women.

Well here's the thing - FWR is focused on women's rights. So the point of the discussion here is ... women and their rights and protections.

There is no responsibility for the focus here to also be encompassing the needs and desires of dysphoric men. The fact that some seem to think that feminists should seek some middle ground is simply because these men are claiming, with whatever degree of commitment, to be 'women'.

It can be a shock when people come here and want the discussion to 'balance', but that is always going to be a non starter. Feminism really isn't concerned with dysphoric males, and all the words about wanting good things for them aren't a middle ground, they are basically just irrelevant to women's rights.

@BarbaraStrozzi

I don't think it's an extremist statement, I just disagree that it isn't possible for people to feel like their views might be more in the middle of this debate.

I do fundamentally think that a man with dysphoria is still a man, yes, but I also believe that in the incredibly complicated structure of the human brain it is entirely plausible for things to go awry such that the person is genuinely out of step with their body. So, to a degree, I do believe it is a real condition, and very sad for the people who suffer it.

But yes, I do believe it is a practical impossibility for these people to have the level of "indulgence" they want without it resulting in an enormous level of risk for women, it's a messy situation with no winners, hence why somebody like me might take it upon themselves to do some reading into the subject only to find that they are not welcome in these circles of discussion because they also concede that trans might be a legitimate thing to be and it is sad that these people will necessarily have to suffer in order for us to defend the rights of women (which take precedence just due to sheer numbers, if nothing else).

My comment was more in regard to how people on here respond to others questioning the subject, rather than how you respond to the trans people themselves.

It can be incredibly difficult to find out the nuances of what the stance of people on here even is because they take it as a given that a middle ground (opinion, not solution) isn't possible, when in reality many of us are living it and don't join in with the debate because we know what kind of response we will get so it's not worth it.

@Mxyzptlk

it's fine having a middle ground opinion, but a middle ground reality would be a lot harder to achieve in the face of the trans onslaught on the rights of girls and women.

Yeah I totally agree with that.

It can be a shock when people come here and want the discussion to 'balance', but that is always going to be a non starter. Feminism really isn't concerned with dysphoric males, and all the words about wanting good things for them aren't a middle ground, they are basically just irrelevant to women's rights.

Exactly.

Women's rights are ring fenced, without interference from men who think they shouldn't be. As is the safeguarding of children.

If forced, the middle ground is a third space. But since no one except the women who are under threat think that, it's almost not worth the headspace. Apart from to point out the rank hypocrisy when it is vehemently refused.

Women are just saying no. No thanks.

If you don't think they should say no, it's up to you to convey why.

You come across as an intelligent, analytical person. Ask yourself the questions and see what the answers are.

When you think about the third space possible solution:

• It wholly respects that some people are uncomfortable or even at risk from breaking gender stereotypes for their sex (toxic masculinity, oh GC women get it.)

• It wholly respects that some people are deeply uncomfortable and voice distress at being seen as or having to use facilities for the sex of their body

• It fully embraces and supports the right of every person to dress as they wish, present as they wish, perform gender in which ever way feels the best expression of themselves, and to have dignified, safe facilities, while also not being compelled to perform obedience to a bodily sex they do not accept by using facilities labelled for them.

• It respects that there are situations in society where an additional option of mixed sex facilities would be more inclusive and useful (parents out alone with opposite sex children, parents with older disabled children, etc etc)

• It respects and preserves single sex spaces for women and girls, their right to choose to undress or be in spaces of greater vulnerability apart from the male gaze/ respecting privacy and dignity; it offers a space of lower risk of assault or harassment such as is found in mixed sex spaces; it allows women to choose to be only with other biological women, to gather and meet their own biological needs in ways only relevant to those who share that biology.

This would be very easy to put into inclusive legislation, there are very powerful and well funded lobbies and groups who could get behind it, this could be made a very swift reality. Everyone's needs are met and equally supported: race, culture, faith, age, disability, sexuality, gender identity.

The answer from the TRA lobby: No.

Because TWAW, end of conversation: it's about validation and ownership of womanhood, not about the above. And the pile of devastation this would wreak is of no interest to them.

using appropriate pronouns for gender as this isn’t going to harm anyway

Could not disagree more. While choosing, freely, without any compulsion or coercion, if you personally wish to use wrong sex pronouns for dysphoric or sexual fetishist individuals may not be harmful any element of compulsion or coercion most definitely is.

Quite aside from the harm of forcing people to indulge sexual fetishists without their express prior consent, there are thousands upon thousands of vulnerable people who will not be able to comply.

There are elderly people with dementia, people with learning disabilities, people with poor literacy or English as a second language. If any element of compulsion or coercion to use wrong sex pronouns exists these people will find themselves at risk of social ostracism, or worse, criminalisation.

Wrong sex pronouns are not a harmless middle ground. Their damaging impact falls most heavily on the most vulnerable.

Yes, I get it, TRA demand those things and offer no middle ground, but there are people whose opinion DOES fall into a middle ground, and as someone who feels that way this thread alone has been the most enlightening I've read on the topic because normally there is no space allowed at all for people whose views do not fall on one extreme or the other, even if those people agree with you on many accounts.

By extreme you mean what exactly though?

Why is every call for explanation of the extremes met with such a response that never expands on what the extreme is?

If by extreme you mean 'observing a male can behave exhibit male pattern behaviour and assessing that risk, and making mitigations based on that observation' - are you really saying that is extreme?

Arnoldwhathisknickers - I completely agree! Using different pronouns is not easy, is not simple and is not just a matter of courtesy.