Am I going to lose friends over the trans/TERf etc debate?

[Maria53]

I am 28 and I feel the vast majority of my peers disagree with me.

I believe in equal rights for everyone. However I have become increasingly concerned about the threat of single sex spaces being taken away. The vast majority of my friends shrug their shoulders and say 'what's the big deal?' and I am incredulous.

One of my best friends of over a decade was banned from Twitter for using the word 'Terf' - we then got into a debate where we clearly disagreed. So I have never posted about it again since to avoid arguing with her and we have remained good friends.

Tonight another friend posted against JK Rowling and I disagreed with her because I am tired of staying silent. Well no sooner had I done this my close friend jumped in to disagree with me as well. Both said I am in the wrong.

I now feel sad because I know they are judging me but I stand by my convictions. Am I going to have to accept I may lose friends over our polarised opinions? Has anyone experienced this?

Good males simply know it's wrong. It's only the creepy ones who insist.

Yes. Well done to all those who champion their "rights" to ignore women's boundaries and rights of privacy and dignity.

Why aren't they campaigning for third spaces which would allow MTF trans people the ability not to use male spaces but recognise the rights of women and girls?

Probably due to poorly written guidance material, rather than the EA itself.

Says the person who can't define woman.

Except that it's a description of feelings. But can't describe them, list, define them, or in any way even mention them.

And then wonder why the CPS find that something they've tried to get into schools might be 'poorly written'!

If you still can't describe, define, list or even mention the very basis of your argument, then might I suggest that the 'game' is well and truly over.

I hope this explanation of the equality act helps. They list specific examples, such as women's aid centres, massages and changing rooms.

It's really not difficult to understand. It's not the law that women should be forced into the company of men when they are vulnerable.

And if your argument rests solely on the definition of the word woman, might I suggest that your inability to actually define it, er, undermines the premise. Just a smidge.

[quote FalseImage]@TheWordWomanIsTaken Trans is short for Transgender, so it's Transgender Woman, you would never write transgenderwoman just like you would never write tallwoman, smallwoman etc. Even Wonder Woman got that right. [/quote]
No. Trans is short for transition -- a verb. To transition . It is not an adjective.
The word "transgender" is newspeak, but it too is based on the verb to transition. To transition from woman to man and vice versa, whereas "woman" is the basis from which the person has transitioned.
Therefore:
A transgender woman would be a female who has transitioned to present as a man.

Using "trans" as an adjective leads to a deliberate misunderstanding: that the person is a subset of a group of people. Transpeople love doing this: they like to talk of trans women, black women, disabled women, so as to set in stone their belief that the person is just one kind of women, and not actually male.

It's a prefix to a noun.

If trans stands for transgender, what's a transsexual? A transgender sexual?

As an aside I am amused by the idea that "wonder" is meant to be a modifier for "woman" in the same way that "short" or "British" is.

If we were to use "trans" as a modifier for "woman" in that way we'd be referring to the group of people who generally prefer to be referred to as transmen.

"You will never get a straight answer. They can’t explain in simple terms what a woman is - but they just know a transwoman is one. Mental."

(I can't work our how to italicise or bold others' text at the moment!).

It's not a game, providing the definition of a women. It's very very easy. Adult human female. Simple. It does not need anything else but that scientific descriptor.

I can't get over the depths of stupidity. It's really quite simple - "trans" can only function as a modifier to a separate noun (as "small", "tall", etc do) IF you first accept the premise "trans women are women." Which is the very thing that we're debating here (and which most of us do not accept, and furthermore - see Pink News' own commissioned opinion poll - most of the general public don't accept either).

Pro tip - if you can't get your head round this, do not ever consider attempting a philosophy degree. You will fail.

@CaraDune

I can't get over the depths of stupidity. It's really quite simple - "trans" can only function as a modifier to a separate noun (as "small", "tall", etc do) IF you first accept the premise "trans women are women." Which is the very thing that we're debating here (and which most of us do not accept, and furthermore - see Pink News' own commissioned opinion poll - most of the general public don't accept either).

Pro tip - if you can't get your head round this, do not ever consider attempting a philosophy degree. You will fail.

^ This. I'm done with these circular arguments.

It's like those people arguing that something is right because "the Bible says so".

This conversation/discussion has descended into the usual rounds of endless circular arguments.
Before I leave this particular thread, I'll reiterate that yes I do support Transgender Women/Men, and will continue to do so in the face of the GC agenda. See you on the next thread and best wishes to the OP, I hope you resolve your differences amicably with a more intelligent conversation.

If you still can't describe, define, list or even mention the very basis of your argument, then might I suggest that the 'game' is well and truly over.

Exactly.

This conversation/discussion has descended into the usual rounds of endless circular arguments.

Indeed 🤣

Keep it coming.

This conversation/discussion has descended into the usual rounds of endless circular arguments.

The only one with a circular argument here is you. And it looks like everyone here can sees you.

Feminists: Woman: an adult human female
You: "Ah yes well this ineffable quality of womanness should mean that some males are considered women and have full access to women's spaces against the will of many women, but I'm not prepared to say what I think it is"

*can see you

in the face of the GC agenda

To protect the rights of female humans and insist answers are found that work for all people equally and don't just privilege people born male.

What's wrong with that agenda?

You still can't and won't admit it, will you? You believe in something you can't even own.

See you on the next thread

Can't wait. Will continue to ask you to articulate the factual or even ideological basis for your misogynistic disregard for women's and girls' rights. Go well.

I'll tell you another difference in 'agenda' too while we're at it. While it would take sackcloth, ashes, endless self flagellation and abject apology to ever stop being battered by the political agenda you support for making the smallest, most unintentional mistake of speech...

if you ever start wondering that maybe female humans aren't born to be props in the lives of real humans, pop back. We'll have the kettle on, you'll be made very welcome.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

This conversation/discussion has descended into the usual rounds of endless circular arguments.

The only one with a circular argument here is you. And it looks like everyone here can sees you.

Feminists: Woman: an adult human female
You: "Ah yes well this ineffable quality of womanness should mean that some males are considered women and have full access to women's spaces against the will of many women, but I'm not prepared to say what I think it is"

And don't forget, simultaneously "But not the perverts. The people with penises who say 'I am a woman' but then go on to commit sexual crimes are male perverts. Only the nice, non-perverted people with penises who say 'I am a woman' really are women."

Not only is part of the argument circular, when considered as a whole the argument isn't even internally consistent.

Responding to the friends issue, I would try and steer away from the semantic issues and bigger arguments to start with, don't get dragged down or let them put you on the spot.

Instead focus on people having different beliefs, and how saying you don't believe in god isn't actually bullying random Christian kids. That's the logic being applied to JKR. Simply say that a parent telling their religious child that JKR hates them is the actual problem, not what she believes. I think it's perfectly okay to discuss how Twitter is like Chinese whispers and crazy takes hold, let them fill the gaps on who is actually bullying.

Just keep pulling it back into how unpleasant and hysterical the conversation is and how it doesn't match up with what actually happened.

This conversation/discussion has descended into the usual rounds of endless circular arguments.

Urgh, IKR?

If only there was a way that people could communicate clearly and we wouldn't have to do that. Whoops, forgive my oldspeak thinking.

Aw are you going @FalseImage? But you haven't responded to my question!

Can we not perpetuate the derailing? OP, are these people you are mostly chatting with online at the moment, and do you usually discuss such things in real life or over social media? Real life chats are a lot easier to be more balanced.

FalseImage. It's clear you support trans men/women. But do you support women and recognise their sex based needs?

It is a feminist board on a site aimed at women.

And again OP, this thread has been a marvelous example on how fruitless a conversation with your friends could be if they fully believe in the ideology. Never hurts to test the waters but you may need to accept that your friends simply will not listen or discuss this in good faith.

FalseImage thanks for completely highlighting just how completely lacking in any sense or ability to actually justify and articulate how and why women should accept the erosion of our rights. You seem to not even understand or acknowledge the breadth of the impact on women’s rights and remained purely focused on single sex spaces. Sadly it is all too predictable.

Male supremacists gonna male supremice.

Misogynists gonna misodge.

Plus ça change.