I had the most awful row with my teenagers yesterday

[JensonsAcolyte]

Both totally TWAW adherents.

DS is 18, his girlfriend is Non Binary and goes by a made up name (male Greek god). I am polite and go along with pronouns and use their chosen name.

For some reason Eddie Izzard came up at dinner time and I ‘misgendered’ them. DS really started laying into me about my bigotry so I played him the clip of Eddie saying Eddie has boy mode and girl mode and uses both sets of pronouns (I've tied myself in knots there as I don’t want to be deleted).

It came out in the conversation that DS believes, absolutely and 100%, that Izzard has changed sex. Actually changed sex. And that if DH came down for breakfast this morning and announced he was now a woman then DS would absolutely 100% believe that he had changed sex overnight.

DD was chiming in at this point and said that actually she would like to go by she/they as sometimes she identifies as ‘less female’. I was a bit irate by this point and I’m afraid I said that is navel gazing bollocks (oops).

Anyway it all got a bit shouty, and then DS dropped in that ‘some lesbians have genital preferences, and ultimately that’s transphobic but nobody’s trying to force anyone to have sex with anyone’ and I lost my shit a bit. I’d hoped this nonsense was confined to Twitter tbh and I hadn’t really seen it in the wild.

I told him he was a privileged, woke little shit. That lesbians my age have spent their entire lives having to justify their sexuality, being told they just haven’t met the right man, not to mention the sexual assaults and corrective rapes. And now are being told they are BIGOTS for not including penis. I was really angry. He then turned round and said the reason his girlfriend (and yes he calls them his girlfriend which is a whole nother eye roll) doesn’t like coming here is because I’m well known for being a Terf and she feels unsafe.

I’ve basically left it as saying I don’t adhere to your religion but that doesn’t make me hateful or phobic, we had a bit more of an argument where he tried to say it’s not a religion but actually I think I made that point quite clear. I don’t believe in God but that doesn’t mean I hate Christians, I don’t believe people can change sex but that doesn’t make me Transphobic.

I’ve woken up this morning and I just still feel sick about it all. He called me some dreadful things, bigot, hateful, dangerous. I said some things I regret, particularly about the arrant nonsense that is non binary, I’m usually a lot more measured than that to avoid offence but I was just so angry.

Is anyone else having this with their teens? I could do with a bit of solidarity, advice maybe or just a hand hold.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm not going anywhere, if there is anything interesting or pertinent posted I will respond.

I thought PPs posts about their own experiences were quite interesting. No?

Well written, and I can see it, but I just don't agree.

Calling someone else she does not make you any less she.

You have misunderstood me.

These two definitions of "She" - the bodied and the unbodied - cannot co-exist. They are mutually incompatible. If one is true, the other cannot be. So yes, accepting the unbodied definition of "She" does make me, who exists as She only by the bodied definition, no longer "She". It's not my choice to be un-She'd, it's the unavoidable consequence of re-defining the word from the body to the unbody. That applies whether we are talking about the nice young people in front of you or the nasty people at the extremes.

Well, unless I lie and call someone She when I don't believe they are.

Is that actually what you are suggesting - keep my own identity, don't attempt to accept the male as a woman but lie to keep the peace? It might be cost free in the moment (that's the joy of sociopathy!) but in the long term it costs us all because it gives the impression of consent and agreement by society that does not in fact exist.

You are not defined by your sex. We are not a species.

Bit confused by the species comment. Do you mean "Women are not a species" or "Humans are not a species"? The latter is obviously not true.

The former is certainly true, but I'm not sure what the point of the comment is. Are you assuming that because I say my identity as a women is based on having a female body, I think my personality is wholly determined by biology?

That's not what I said.

I am not defined by my sex but it is a part of the definition of me because the life experience I have and the choices I can make are shaped in part by the physical abilities and social consequences of the body in which I live. As a feminist I fight in the hope of minimising those impacts for the future, but here and now they are real and to deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.

@Blibbyblobby

Well written, and I can see it, but I just don't agree.

Calling someone else she does not make you any less she.

You have misunderstood me.

These two definitions of "She" - the bodied and the unbodied - cannot co-exist. They are mutually incompatible. If one is true, the other cannot be. So yes, accepting the unbodied definition of "She" does make me, who exists as She only by the bodied definition, no longer "She". It's not my choice to be un-She'd, it's the unavoidable consequence of re-defining the word from the body to the unbody. That applies whether we are talking about the nice young people in front of you or the nasty people at the extremes.

Well, unless I lie and call someone She when I don't believe they are.

Is that actually what you are suggesting - keep my own identity, don't attempt to accept the male as a woman but lie to keep the peace? It might be cost free in the moment (that's the joy of sociopathy!) but in the long term it costs us all because it gives the impression of consent and agreement by society that does not in fact exist.

You are not defined by your sex. We are not a species.

Bit confused by the species comment. Do you mean "Women are not a species" or "Humans are not a species"? The latter is obviously not true.

The former is certainly true, but I'm not sure what the point of the comment is. Are you assuming that because I say my identity as a women is based on having a female body, I think my personality is wholly determined by biology?

That's not what I said.

I am not defined by my sex but it is a part of the definition of me because the life experience I have and the choices I can make are shaped in part by the physical abilities and social consequences of the body in which I live. As a feminist I fight in the hope of minimising those impacts for the future, but here and now they are real and to deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.

No, I meant we are not all one identical group. Just because the trans female sitting in front of you does not look or act like you doesn't make them feel less female.

'deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.'

So by your logic , my young person who is FTM is still a female. So do they not have the same rights as you? To be identified how they choose?

The fact that you don't believe who they are is neither here nor there, and just not acceptable. We cannot reject trans.

Butwasitherdriveway you seem determined to respect other people's "rights" at all cost, but only if they are trans? As clearly argued by several posters, what about the rights of women to define themselves and be truthful?

Blibbyblobby 's post was perfect in describing the dilemma about pronouns. And for me it is a personal situation. Of course I would like to continue to respect my youngster, but I do not want to be dishonest and made to tell a lie any time I refer to my child.

Everything that's going on in the wider society (compelled speech in court which sets a precedent) filters down into our personal lives. We do not live in individual bubbles and to maintain a stance that the wider politics are just "extremes" that don't effect or influence our lives is naive at best.

@oxalisRed

Butwasitherdriveway you seem determined to respect other people's "rights" at all cost, but only if they are trans? As clearly argued by several posters, what about the rights of women to define themselves and be truthful?

Blibbyblobby 's post was perfect in describing the dilemma about pronouns. And for me it is a personal situation. Of course I would like to continue to respect my youngster, but I do not want to be dishonest and made to tell a lie any time I refer to my child.

Everything that's going on in the wider society (compelled speech in court which sets a precedent) filters down into our personal lives. We do not live in individual bubbles and to maintain a stance that the wider politics are just "extremes" that don't effect or influence our lives is naive at best.

Because I work directly with trans.

I'm not going to refuse to use it, under any grounds.

No, I meant we are not all one identical group. Just because the trans female sitting in front of you does not look or act like you doesn't make them feel less female.

'deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.'

So by your logic , my young person who is FTM is still a female. So do they not have the same rights as you? To be identified how they choose?

The fact that you don't believe who they are is neither here nor there, and just not acceptable. We cannot reject trans.

Exactly. As I said in my initial reply to you, it's an impasse. There are two mutually exclusive definitions here. It's not "cost free" on one side and hugely important on the other. So it's not ok for you to blithely demand those of us who have a sex-based conception of ourselves just throw away our identities to validate the other.

I don't want to reject trans. I think trans/gender non-conforming people are natural allies to feminism, being living proof that most of the bollocks that has been culturally assigned to men and women can exist quite happily in the opposite body. I think the more we separate character and role from any concept of sex/gender alignment the happier everyone will be, and hopefully more trans people will feel able to live authentic lives without body modification.

But we can't do that as long as trans identities are predicated on denying the existence and materiality of sexed identities by appropriating the words that describe them.

It is very relevant that this new, trans-inclusive understanding of identity, which should be a good thing, is being expressed by redefining the existing sex-based words to new meanings. That is making what should be a positive loosening of social restrictions into a really big problem, because there are legal rights defined using the original sense that are now being wholesale appropriated by trans identified people who conflate the legal right based on the old meaning with an identity based on the new, and therefore believe they have that legal right and are being invalidated if this is denied.

That is not ok, and it's not something the sex-based identifiers are responsible for, it's happening because of trans appropriation of sex-based words.

We need trans people to acknowledge that sex-based identities also exist, stop redefining our words for ourselves and start defining themselves in a way that doesn't deny our existence.

This is a conflict that arises only because trans ideology wants to redefine existing words, so only trans ideology can solve it.

I can sympathise but I can't do it for them and I won't give up my own identity to solve a problem not of my creating.

That said, what I really want, what I think will solve all this and become an enabling and freeing change, at least until the idea of sex/gender aligned personalities goes away altogether, is simply for society to recognise and honour three discrete sex/gender definitions: biological, legal and social.

So rather than using "Woman" or "Man" to define all three at once which we all know doesn't work well for anyone, you'd have a biological sex (observed at birth, immutable and male or female, but could also capture details of DSDs if that is a useful distinction to make), a legal sex which starts aligned to biological sex but can be changed following a legal process (not self-id), and social gender which is entirely self-defined, can change and includes agender.

All three would recognised as real, equal and valid but in different circumstances. Mostly day to day life would be organised around social gender. Laws and rights would specify which aspect of sex they apply to (usually social and/or legal - given the definition of legal sex there'd be very few laws or rights that apply to biological and not legal sex), sports and medical stuff would always be biological. Equality laws, initiatives and tracking would cover all three because all three carry a risk of discrimination and bias.

Since all three would be valid, a person's identity would be seen as the combination so there'd be no sense of shame, hiding or passing where only one of the three can be known.

@Blibbyblobby

No, I meant we are not all one identical group. Just because the trans female sitting in front of you does not look or act like you doesn't make them feel less female.

'deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.'

So by your logic , my young person who is FTM is still a female. So do they not have the same rights as you? To be identified how they choose?

The fact that you don't believe who they are is neither here nor there, and just not acceptable. We cannot reject trans.

Exactly. As I said in my initial reply to you, it's an impasse. There are two mutually exclusive definitions here. It's not "cost free" on one side and hugely important on the other. So it's not ok for you to blithely demand those of us who have a sex-based conception of ourselves just throw away our identities to validate the other.

I don't want to reject trans. I think trans/gender non-conforming people are natural allies to feminism, being living proof that most of the bollocks that has been culturally assigned to men and women can exist quite happily in the opposite body. I think the more we separate character and role from any concept of sex/gender alignment the happier everyone will be, and hopefully more trans people will feel able to live authentic lives without body modification.

But we can't do that as long as trans identities are predicated on denying the existence and materiality of sexed identities by appropriating the words that describe them.

It is very relevant that this new, trans-inclusive understanding of identity, which should be a good thing, is being expressed by redefining the existing sex-based words to new meanings. That is making what should be a positive loosening of social restrictions into a really big problem, because there are legal rights defined using the original sense that are now being wholesale appropriated by trans identified people who conflate the legal right based on the old meaning with an identity based on the new, and therefore believe they have that legal right and are being invalidated if this is denied.

That is not ok, and it's not something the sex-based identifiers are responsible for, it's happening because of trans appropriation of sex-based words.

We need trans people to acknowledge that sex-based identities also exist, stop redefining our words for ourselves and start defining themselves in a way that doesn't deny our existence.

This is a conflict that arises only because trans ideology wants to redefine existing words, so only trans ideology can solve it.

I can sympathise but I can't do it for them and I won't give up my own identity to solve a problem not of my creating.

That said, what I really want, what I think will solve all this and become an enabling and freeing change, at least until the idea of sex/gender aligned personalities goes away altogether, is simply for society to recognise and honour three discrete sex/gender definitions: biological, legal and social.

So rather than using "Woman" or "Man" to define all three at once which we all know doesn't work well for anyone, you'd have a biological sex (observed at birth, immutable and male or female, but could also capture details of DSDs if that is a useful distinction to make), a legal sex which starts aligned to biological sex but can be changed following a legal process (not self-id), and social gender which is entirely self-defined, can change and includes agender.

All three would recognised as real, equal and valid but in different circumstances. Mostly day to day life would be organised around social gender. Laws and rights would specify which aspect of sex they apply to (usually social and/or legal - given the definition of legal sex there'd be very few laws or rights that apply to biological and not legal sex), sports and medical stuff would always be biological. Equality laws, initiatives and tracking would cover all three because all three carry a risk of discrimination and bias.

Since all three would be valid, a person's identity would be seen as the combination so there'd be no sense of shame, hiding or passing where only one of the three can be known.

Wow blibby.

I never thought I'd see the day id ...agree!

You really are fantastic.

@Butwasitherdriveway this is why discussion is such a good thing, instead of #nodebate
Most people on this board are not transphobic, despite what is said. We just need to be heard, just as trans people need to be.
Discussion, instead of being shut down, is the only way forward.

[quote Fnib]@Butwasitherdriveway this is why discussion is such a good thing, instead of #nodebate
Most people on this board are not transphobic, despite what is said. We just need to be heard, just as trans people need to be.
Discussion, instead of being shut down, is the only way forward.[/quote]
I agree. I can be as stubborn and as goady as the rest. We are all just human, in an awful time.

Wow blibby.

I never thought I'd see the day id ...agree!

Thank you for asking very good questions and engaging genuinely with the answers. And have a wonderful Easter!

trans/gender non-conforming people are natural allies to feminism, being living proof that most of the bollocks that has been culturally assigned to men and women can exist quite happily in the opposite body
Logically, one would think so.
However, things really don't seem to be playing out that way: it appears there are groups with a great deal invested in fomenting precisely the opposite alignment and making any kind of safeguarding impossible.

@BrizzleGirl Never underestimate the power of culture to trump nurture, especially in young people. And 30 is the new 20 these days - men at 30 aren't necessarily very mature. Plenty of time, though, for life to knock a few corners off.

I also think this whole bubble will pop eventually, and he'll be forced to reexamine his views for the nonsense they are.

Ps when I said despite what is said I meant what is said about this board, not on it.

From birth we learn to categorise the differences we see before we can fully articulate them, so even a toddler has worked out something of the subtle ways in which, say, a fox and a cat and a dog are different. Babies quickly learn to code what is man or woman, male or female, masculine or feminine and are taught the language to reflect this.

For the vast majority of people in the world, we use sex based pronouns to reflect the knowledge that we have internalised. We quickly correct ourselves on the rare occasions we realise we have got it wrong, possibly feeling a sense of social embarrassment.

If, however, your developing teenage sense of self is predicated on a need for others to be constantly validating and affirming your internal identity, despite the many coded messages about your biological sex that outsiders instinctively see, then you are ceding control of your identity to other people’s opinions of you.

You are putting yourself in the hands of forces you can’t control.

You may try to be the master of the language and opinions of others because your identity requires external validation. Some people are prepared to be 'mastered' and will agree to validate you. To them it may feel like no big deal or an act of kindness or love.

But others may not agree to play along, or may not do so all the time - and they are allowed to choose not to, particularly when it conflicts with the constraints of the material world. For example, if a teenage male (who identifies as a girl and is attracted to girls) wishes to share sleeping accommodation with girls, the females should be allowed to exert their boundaries and consent and say No.

So, in reality you may start to find yourself a constant slave to the opinions of others. Which is why you may feel "T--fs don't want trans people to exist". And you may feel 'unsafe' because you have made your core identity vulnerable to the very next person who 'misgenders' or 'deadnames' you or attempts to talk about science or has the temerity to refer to personal pre-trans history or biological sex.

Building an identity on the basis of an internal feeling that may or may not be fixed and that can, and will, be refuted (sometimes casually or unwittingly, sometimes intentionally and most particularly when it clashes with external reality) can lead to unhappiness. And an unstable sense of self coupled with the unstable fallacy at the heart of genderism (sex =/≠ gender) can be a recipe for a fearful, resentful existence.

And no parent wants that for their child.

I told my mother she was homophobic and sexist.
Cos she is.

@ANewCreation

Brilliant analysis. Thank you.

@Blibbyblobby

No, I meant we are not all one identical group. Just because the trans female sitting in front of you does not look or act like you doesn't make them feel less female.

'deny it is to ignore the reality of women's - of female - lives.'

So by your logic , my young person who is FTM is still a female. So do they not have the same rights as you? To be identified how they choose?

The fact that you don't believe who they are is neither here nor there, and just not acceptable. We cannot reject trans.

Exactly. As I said in my initial reply to you, it's an impasse. There are two mutually exclusive definitions here. It's not "cost free" on one side and hugely important on the other. So it's not ok for you to blithely demand those of us who have a sex-based conception of ourselves just throw away our identities to validate the other.

I don't want to reject trans. I think trans/gender non-conforming people are natural allies to feminism, being living proof that most of the bollocks that has been culturally assigned to men and women can exist quite happily in the opposite body. I think the more we separate character and role from any concept of sex/gender alignment the happier everyone will be, and hopefully more trans people will feel able to live authentic lives without body modification.

But we can't do that as long as trans identities are predicated on denying the existence and materiality of sexed identities by appropriating the words that describe them.

It is very relevant that this new, trans-inclusive understanding of identity, which should be a good thing, is being expressed by redefining the existing sex-based words to new meanings. That is making what should be a positive loosening of social restrictions into a really big problem, because there are legal rights defined using the original sense that are now being wholesale appropriated by trans identified people who conflate the legal right based on the old meaning with an identity based on the new, and therefore believe they have that legal right and are being invalidated if this is denied.

That is not ok, and it's not something the sex-based identifiers are responsible for, it's happening because of trans appropriation of sex-based words.

We need trans people to acknowledge that sex-based identities also exist, stop redefining our words for ourselves and start defining themselves in a way that doesn't deny our existence.

This is a conflict that arises only because trans ideology wants to redefine existing words, so only trans ideology can solve it.

I can sympathise but I can't do it for them and I won't give up my own identity to solve a problem not of my creating.

That said, what I really want, what I think will solve all this and become an enabling and freeing change, at least until the idea of sex/gender aligned personalities goes away altogether, is simply for society to recognise and honour three discrete sex/gender definitions: biological, legal and social.

So rather than using "Woman" or "Man" to define all three at once which we all know doesn't work well for anyone, you'd have a biological sex (observed at birth, immutable and male or female, but could also capture details of DSDs if that is a useful distinction to make), a legal sex which starts aligned to biological sex but can be changed following a legal process (not self-id), and social gender which is entirely self-defined, can change and includes agender.

All three would recognised as real, equal and valid but in different circumstances. Mostly day to day life would be organised around social gender. Laws and rights would specify which aspect of sex they apply to (usually social and/or legal - given the definition of legal sex there'd be very few laws or rights that apply to biological and not legal sex), sports and medical stuff would always be biological. Equality laws, initiatives and tracking would cover all three because all three carry a risk of discrimination and bias.

Since all three would be valid, a person's identity would be seen as the combination so there'd be no sense of shame, hiding or passing where only one of the three can be known.

This is wonderful.

How are we going to achieve it? You're still going to have the same problem of some people wanting in on other peoples' sex based rights, and the other people just not having it. Like the light bulb in the "how many psychologists" joke, people are really going to have to want to change.

How do you balance your perception of the emotional cost/benefit of specific pronoun use for the people involved on both sides?

Easy. If the people on one side have XY chromosomes and the people on the other side don't, the former must always be prioritised.

Chapeau to blibbyblobby who’s on fire today, great post from anewcreation, and fair play to you, butwasit, for not getting entrenched, that takes courage.

@Pookah83

As an autistic person this new play acting (much like the masking we typically do) is exhausting. I don't want to have to expend so much mental effort and cause myself anxiety. The mentally ill, neurodivergent and especially the learning disabled are never considered in this farce of rapidly changing rules and terminology.

As a parent of an Autistic child - THIS!!!!!

@ANewCreation - thats a really interesting post - hadnt thought of it quite that way before. That relying on others to "affirm" a central piece of your identity will leave you feeling very insecure and resentful as the choice to do so or not rests with them and not with you. Given that teens in many ways feel insecure about who they are, this is a whole shitstorm of emotions. And in cases where its right that your own sense of reality is NOT affirmed, for example in a safeguarding instance, that would absolutely fuel your feeling that the world doesnt has no place for you. Seems to me that this is where a sensitive discussion and third safe spaces comes into its own.

That relying on others to "affirm" a central piece of your identity will leave you feeling very insecure and resentful as the choice to do so or not rests with them and not with you.

It is extraordinary - and is so counter to the way most people parent their children in every other context that I wonder why they are so keen to do it here.

When my children have come home upset that a kid at school called them something - true or false - we say fuck 'em. We don't care - because other's people opinions/attitudes is not important to us. We can only control ourselves...
its very strange - and yup, unhealthy - to see the rise of a movement which is so dependant on getting other people's validation at all costs.

@Butwasittherdriveway

"You have well described the many threads of women fuming about trans women in their toilets. Well done."

No I was describing you and the others like you who scream I want and you're mean at women who are defending their law based rights which are being eroded. Clearly you are just being goady but ok

Gosh brilliant posts from ANewCreation and Blibbyblobby.

@Blibbyblobby

Wow blibby.

I never thought I'd see the day id ...agree!

Thank you for asking very good questions and engaging genuinely with the answers. And have a wonderful Easter!

And you 😘