An inclusive way to be gender critical?

[pensivepigeon]

My thoughts on gender and sex are thus:

Gender is a social construct. It is how society and individuals view the presentation of the sexes - in fashion, interests and work roles. Whereas sex is biological, we cannot change it even though we might surgically change our appearance and take artificial hormones which affect our bodily functions.

However because gender is a social construct and we are part of society we can define it. I define gender as

Female = adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.
Male= adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.

If everyone took this on board it would mean safe single sex spaces could be preserved, as people could present themselves however they want, wear what they want but use the single sex space appropriate for their sex without conflict. Uniforms would offer everyone both traditional female and male options which either sex could wear. Ditto with sports, competing takes place within the appropriate sex classes but competitors can wear either the traditional male or female competition uniforms. There would be no confusion and need to agonise over language when providing medical care.

Taking this stance stance means I have no problem when it comes to saying I am of female sex with a female gender.

So am I gender critical? Is this inclusive?

should be allies

How can you consider yourself as an ally if you are trying to force something, and manipulate, to get what you want?

Trans people are trans people; a separate category of person. Campaign for third spaces and provisions, and maybe you'll get more of the support you feel you need.

However, bear in mind that most people are totally against pushing children; young gay and lesbian teenagers; and autistic youngsters down a path of medicalisation and surgery in order to confirm a narrative.

However, bear in mind that most people are totally against pushing children; young gay and lesbian teenagers; and autistic youngsters down a path of medicalisation and surgery in order to confirm a narrative.

And there is no need for this if we can get more people to recognise it is normative for stereotypes of gender expression to bear no relation to a person's sex. Feminists have been seeking to break down sexual stereotypes for generations. Why smash down their good work when it could serve people of all different genders very well in enabling greater acceptance of a variety of gender expressions within society?

@Justhadathought How can you consider yourself as an ally if you are trying to force something, and manipulate, to get what you want?

I am not forcing anyone to do anything, not am I manipulating anyone. I am putting the evidence out there.

Trans people are trans people; a separate category of person. Campaign for third spaces and provisions, and maybe you'll get more of the support you feel you need.

Trans gender people are in a protected class, unlike non trans gender people, but they are who they say they are. "Separate but equal" does not have a storied history.

Trans gender people are in a protected class, unlike non trans gender people, but they are who they say they are. "Separate but equal" does not have a storied history

Women are a protected group in the U.k, with protected status in the Equalities Act - which guarantees single sex spaces and services.

Different, but equal is a great principle to strive for. Equality does not mean sameness. It can accommodate difference.

Campaign for your third spaces, services and sporting categories and most of the conflict would cease.

Trans gender people are in a protected class, unlike non trans gender people

Stop trying to centre yourself in everything. Women are not "non trans people".

Why do you write "trans gender" with a space?

Trans gender people are in a protected class, unlike non trans gender people

You're suggesting that gender reassignment is the only protected characteristic. Which is nonsense.

"They are who they say they are" is a bloody terrifying message to handing down. It's a basic principle of safeguarding not to simply nod and smile when someone makes claims about their identity and credentials.

but they are who they say they are

Who says? I don't accept that. it's not possible to change sex, and I don't believe in innate gender identity in the same way you do.

Definitely, bourbonne. But DadJoke doesn't seem to understand how risk and safeguarding work.

@Justhadathought Stop trying to centre yourself in everything. Women are not "non trans people".

100/1 says you hate the word "cis", so I used non-trans, and in this context I was discussing people in general, not women in particular. Finally, I am not transgender, so how on earth am I centering myself in a discussion of gender identity?

Women are a protected group in the U.k, with protected status in the Equalities Act - which guarantees single sex spaces and services.

The Equalities Act allows must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim if there is a conflict between protected categories.

Currently, transgender people can use the toilets which match their gender. Separating them off is straightforwardly transphobic, just as seperate facilities for BAME people based on spurious evidence was straightforwardly racist.

@Ereshkigalangcleg You're suggesting that gender reassignment is the only protected characteristic. Which is nonsense.

Clearly not. You can be a member of more than one protected category.

How, exactly, are you going to determine the sex of people using toilets? If you are genuinely worried that men will pretend to be transgender in order to infiltrate women's facilities, it's just as plausible (ie not very) that a cis man might pretend to be a trans man in order to do so. Are you going to inspect the genitals of everyone who is gender non-conforming? That's an awful lot of people.

Separating them off is straightforwardly transphobic

@DadJoke

They are not separated off. They, like anyone else, can use the single sex facilities appropriate to their biological sex. Single sex spaces should be safe for all variations in gender. Trans gendered people still do possess a biological sex. What is wrong with this provision?

Sorry. Bold fail. First sentence quoting DadJoke

How, exactly, are you going to determine the sex of people using toilets?

So if someone who wasn't in a trusted position such as a doctor, for instance, dressed up in a white coat and put a stethoscope around their neck and strolled into an examination room where someone was ready to be examined, this would be ok because they might not be challenged?

@DadJoke

I think the message is people tend to want to (be able to) obey the law. Hence trans people and feminists want the law to reflect, protect and provide for their needs. Currently uk law makes special provision and has protections for biological sex. Just because someone is able to break laws without challenge doesn't make it right.

How, exactly, are you going to determine the sex of people using toilets? If you are genuinely worried that men will pretend to be transgender in order to infiltrate women's facilities, it's just as plausible (ie not very) that a cis man might pretend to be a trans man in order to do so. Are you going to inspect the genitals of everyone who is gender non-conforming? That's an awful lot of people.

You mean we can't trust males to respect women's privacy and dignity voluntarily and stay out of places that aren't meant for them? Well I never, there's a thing.

Currently, transgender people can use the toilets which match their gender.

There is no such protected right. Single sex spaces can be for women only. Non GRC holding males are legally male. You're confusing trans lobby captured guidance with the law. Boring though it might be to look at threads where you aren't Having Your Say, we've discussed this issue on FWR in depth many times without your pearls of wisdom, DadJoke. The last time was yesterday evening, I believe.

just as seperate facilities for BAME people based on spurious evidence was straightforwardly racist.

It's not even remotely comparable, but nice try.

Currently, transgender people can use the toilets which match their gender. Separating them off is straightforwardly transphobic, just as separate facilities for BAME people based on spurious evidence was straightforwardly racist

You clearly have no grounding or understanding of why single sex Ypaces were first sought and required. those reasons have not gone away. They are about the dignity, privacy and also the safety due to one's sex.

I'm sick of TRA activists using black people to bolster their position. Usually it ends up sounding very racist itself. Black women are women; not a sub category of women. And black women also need and require single sex spaces; because males, of whatever colour, pose a threat to women.

Gender is not the same as sex.

spaces

Any of these issues can be discussed and solved if we start from the premise that gender identity is a real thing, and that people are the gender they say they are. If you start from a counterfactual, that trans women, for example, are men, we get nowhere.

But no one is arguing against gender identity. Some people have one. Their beliefs should be respected - or, to be more precise, their right to hold those beliefs should be respected, even by people who disagree & think gender identity is an entirely personal matter.

You have a strong belief in your gender identity? That's fine. But it's entirely subjective & no basis on which to undermine issues determined by sex.

Sex segregated spaces are not predicated on gender identities.

How, exactly, are you going to determine the sex of people using toilets? If you are genuinely worried that men will pretend to be transgender in order to infiltrate women's facilities, it's just as plausible (ie not very) that a cis man might pretend to be a trans man in order to do so. Are you going to inspect the genitals of everyone who is gender non-conforming? That's an awful lot of people

To most, the whole concept of gender identity is a pretence.

Who is to say, according to your own words, who is a woman and who is not? We are told that male genitalia is really female genitalia if the possessor of those genitals identifies as a woman. Who are you to say who is really trans and not?

Single sex spaces exist as a safeguard - to protect and preserve the dignity and comfort of the female sex ( also the male sex).

You are simply gaslighting now.

Why don't you campaign for third spaces?

Sex segregated spaces are not predicated on gender identities

Yes, @CorvusPurpureus

And @DadJoke. You acknowledge yourself that neither gender identity or expression is necessarily correlated to biological sex. So it follows provisions and protection for biological sex need to be made separately to those made for those made for gender. Which they are under uk law.

I will say it again because i dont think i was blunt enough the first time.

The entire premise of the OP is disingenuous because it, and trans ideology, push gender stereotypes onto men and women. It stresses that women and men should dress certain ways or do certain things and are happy with gender stereotypes if you do not sign up as trans. It therefore legitimises and indeed advocates surgery and hormones as a way reject these stereotypes saying that sex is chosen and your body is wrong if you do not match these. It could not be more regressive if it tried. It sends women back the kitchen to high heels. Whilst of course late male transitioners think they are above the drudge of the domestic and childcare responsibilities that come with these stereotypes.

Instead they frame trans ideology as progressive because it means men can be included in the bits of female appearance and status which suit them (whilst simultaneously ignoring the shit bits or the uncomfortable issues of inheritance and transmen and how being pregnant can only be a female act because biology).

Instead it is actually actively pushing body dysmorphia and the idea that bodies are wrong if they dont conform to stereotypes. Its all about pushing conformity not rejecting it!

Its funny how a diagnosis of body dysmorphia is as follows:

You may have body dysmorphic disorder if you worry a lot about how a specific part of your body looks and it affects your daily life.

Treatments for body dysmorphic disorder include talking therapies and antidepressants.

The exact cause of body dysmorphic disorder is unclear. It's been linked to genes, chemical changes in the brain and traumatic past experiences.

All things we are supposed to ignore when the word trans is mentioned. We have a pile of research and evidence which is dismissed outright for conditions like anorexia which involve body dysmorphia because of ideology.

When ideolgy dominates over science and research you have a problem. It is a pattern which is always regressive in practice and has a dark history.

So no, i will not sign up to either gender stereotypes or trans ideology because its backwards, harms too many people and fails to safeguard50% of the population. It disproportionately benefits males to the detriment of females - even if they are transmen (who seem to get the particularly shitty end of the stick for hormones and surgery side effects).

The OP was posting in bad faith from the word go. It was designed to try and create a narrative of women here being narrow minded and as if they hadnt considered certain things. It had undertones that perpetuated the narrative of transwomen being the most disadvantaged in society (they are categorically not).

This was seen through and called out because we've seen it all before. The MO of the friendly question, but with a bloody obvious smear agenda from the second it started.

The answer is still no.

No you can not change sex.
No transwomen are not women.
No we do not believe in gender stereotypes.
No we do not advocate and will not support ideology which promotes body dysmorphia and the unnecessary medicalisation of healthy individuals. Especially when they are disproportionately vulnerable groups such as children, lesbians and people who are autistic.

No. No. And again no.

Thank you @RedToothBrush. You always manage to articulate, so beautifully, the things I can only think