I found this slightly reassuring - re girls IDing as boys

[QueenPeary]

Until recently despite engaging in the gender debate a lot and having a VERY full-on TRA family member, I hadn't had much direct experience of trans-IDing children.

But recently 2 of my DD's female classmates (year 6), one a close friend, have started IDing as boys, have boys names etc and this is being embraced by the school. My DD knows my GC views and we discuss it, but I have agreed to be respectful in using the right names etc (though I avoid using he pronouns).

Anyway - what I found reassuring is that both have discussed it with my DD and said they know they are not actually boys, and are not interested in taking drugs or having a penis. So despite the school being captured and going along with the full TWAW/TMAM etc, the kids (sometimes) aren't. They seem to realise it's an identity to try on, akin to a fashion or music tribe, and so maybe - I hope - there's a way in which girls (and maybe boys too) can go through this without it having to involve the long-term risks to their health.

I still don't think they are a "he" and I don't think it's going down a very healthy or feminist path to ID as a boy instead of just being a girl of whatever type you want to be. But I am kind of heartened that maybe this trend could default back to something more akin to good old 80s "gender bending" and away from the idea of actually changing sex.

Of course many kids still are at risk of both harmful medicalisation and anti-science ideology and I'm not minimising that – but wondered what people thought.

I mean, you could show your true colours more clearly but I'm not sure how.

Chuck lesbians into the mix?
How about black people?

I don't think that's been tried before.

ah we're working our way up to an outraged flounce now are we @TheFairPrincess

it's nice that you shared your view that disabled people's identities aren't as real / important as other people's before you went though

Are you honestly saying that because I refuse to discriminate against all trans women based on the actions of one disabled sick individual that that is equitable to me "sympathising with them"?

I was really triggered earlier but I'm now just starting to see how flawed this whole "debate" is. It's just an echo chamber for people who all think the same thing.

Why is it okay to use examples of disabled pedophiles to "win" an argument about same sex spaces being inclusive where feasible? It's just madness. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

Why is it okay to use examples of [ deliberately omitting the word disabled as I don't see why it's relevent here] pedophiles to "win" an argument about same sex spaces being inclusive where feasible?

it's almost like paedophiles wouldn't think to say 'I'm a woman' if it got them easy access to children

......hang on a minute

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg You are a deeply unpleasant person in many ways.

I have no shame in saying I was completely triggered by your incredible insensitivity and grossness. I'm not flouncing though, I am allowed to have genuine feelings about upsetting situations.

Nice job taking accountability for your shitty nonsensical logic and bigotry though. Going to make any attempt to argue that it is in fact appropriate to parade individual cases of assault and abuse to make an argument to be applied to general society at a population level?

@TheFairPrincess

Concern trolling does not mean trolling. It means using concern as a shield for your bigoted opinions in a disingenuous way.

I am not concern trolling because I am not pretending to be concerned about about a group of people in the name of tearing them down. I'm actively defending people who are being ripped apart and labelled sexual predators in the apparent name of feminism. I'm not buying it.

The people being labelled sexual predators are being labelled as such on the basis of their history as... sexual predators.

Do you post rape articles committed by straight cis men to you friends and daughters before they go out on a date to remind them of what men could potentially do? No. So why do you think what you are doing is inanyway acceptable?

I wouldn't need to. Most women aren't in complete denial that some men are dangerous. In fact, being told over and over to be careful on dates, including guarding one's drink, to always meet in a public place and so on was the soundtrack to most women's adolescence.

And why, because I said I don't agree that all trans women should be excluded automatically from any place in society labelled as single sex? You resort to saying I "don't give a shit about a little girl who was raped

Surely allowing born males into spaces where women are vulnerable puts women and children, such as that little girl at risk. Male pattern violence / sex offending does not automatically vanish when someone identifies as female. Why would you want to remove women's safeguards in this way?

If you honestly believed that you were not using individuals to represent the whole group, you literally would not be posting about indiviudals, it wouldn't even factor in.

Safeguarding is based on individual cases that prove where the gaps lie that need to be closed. DBS checks were brought in as a direct reaction to one case demonstrating the need.

I don't even know why this is a debate. It is literally already the law. It's not a proposed change. The thread isn't even about bloody toilets.

[quote TheFairPrincess]@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg You are a deeply unpleasant person in many ways.

I have no shame in saying I was completely triggered by your incredible insensitivity and grossness. I'm not flouncing though, I am allowed to have genuine feelings about upsetting situations.

Nice job taking accountability for your shitty nonsensical logic and bigotry though. Going to make any attempt to argue that it is in fact appropriate to parade individual cases of assault and abuse to make an argument to be applied to general society at a population level?[/quote]
I suggest you cool down. You seem very upset

I appreciate that having your (rather irrational) opinions challenged must be quite painful, but you are not behaving very well

I'm now just starting to see how flawed this whole "debate" is. It's just an echo chamber for people who all think the same thing.

You really can't stand people talking about this from the pov of women and children, can you?

Disagreement with you is not an echo chamber. And the clue is in the title of this forum: 'women's rights'. You are going to find a lot of people here who do not see females as second class citizens to the more pressing needs of males.

Anyhow.....

I think its good that young children can explore different aspects of their personality in a safe environment. I draw a line at medical intervention or children being drawn down a path thats hard to break free from.

I think puberty will help them understand themselves better. I know it did for me.

You are a deeply unpleasant person in many ways.

Goodness me. That's a bit rude. Resorting to personal attacks does not improve the quality of your 'debate'. In fact it undermines everything you say.

The people being labelled sexual predators are being labelled as such on the basis of their history as... sexual predators.

Then why are they being used as examples to represent a community. Because in this context that is what they were being used for. This isn't a thread about sexual predators. This was a thread about trans identity.

If we looked at the crime statistics and how they differ between white and black people, we would all be looking at causes like intergenerational deprivation. Very few people would argue that any statistical difference was down to an innate quality in black people.

However, sex based differences of sexual assaults are not the same. I would very much argue that the majority of the difference was innate. I do not think there is, or has been any civilisation at any time when the figures were not skewed in the same direction between male and female people, with regard to victim and offender.

@GregTransphobia really? Was it not emotive ad hominem straw manning to jump to "you don't cared about raped little girls?"

Didn't seem like the most stable of counterpoints.

"...sex based differences of sexual assaults are not the same. I would very much argue that the majority of the difference was innate...."

Particularly in the case of rape where a penis is requisite.

Are you honestly saying that because I refuse to discriminate against all trans women based on the actions of one disabled sick individual that that is equitable to me "sympathising with them"?

You previously said you were for some single sex spaces. That was you discriminating against all men because of the actions of a few.

And this is yet another example of the 'no evidence' mantra that has taken over from 'no debate'.
TRA - Why shouldn't transwomen use females single sex spaces?'
Rational people - 'well here's various examples of women being harmed by transwomen in single sex spaces, including toilets and prisons. These reasons are why we are concerned about self id in particular'.
TRA

Come to think of it, there is a woman on mumsnet who has repeatedly argued that hospital wards should be mixed sex, TheFairPrincess.

Guess what I posted in those threads? The court cases that triggered recommendations that hospital wards should be single sex from then on.

Is it unfair on male hospital patients to deprive them of female company because of other individuals' actions?

But my whole point the whole time has only ever been, you can support women's rights without being transphobic.

The thread was actually about trans identity and the poster expressing surprise that trans people did not actually literally believe they were the opposite sex. I had what I felt like was an interesting discussion, then got paraded with examples of rapists and abusers because I said I didn't necessarily agree all single sex spaces should be off limits to trans women all of the time? I do find it upsetting and offensive of course.

@TheFairPrincess

The people being labelled sexual predators are being labelled as such on the basis of their history as... sexual predators.

Then why are they being used as examples to represent a community. Because in this context that is what they were being used for. This isn't a thread about sexual predators. This was a thread about trans identity.

They are not being used as examples to represent a community.

They are being used as evidence that to permit any male people into female facilities has resulted in male people offending according to male offending rates against female people. And that those assaults would not have happened if those males had not had access to female only facilities. And that there is no way to identify which male people are safe and which are offenders.

The alternative is a belief that female people will just have to suck up exclusion and a certain amount of assaults and worse as the price of meeting male people's needs.

@TheFairPrincess

The people being labelled sexual predators are being labelled as such on the basis of their history as... sexual predators.

Then why are they being used as examples to represent a community. Because in this context that is what they were being used for. This isn't a thread about sexual predators. This was a thread about trans identity.

Show me where we have said that these individuals are representative.

Then why are they being used as examples to represent a community.

No one has said they represent the whole community. You need to question yourself why you think that's what people have said. Sounds a bit transpohobic imo. Clearly it's NATWALT just as it's not NAMALT. That goes without saying.

@HexedBoogie

Thank you for replying.

Yeah, I do accept that cis women suffer discrimination and disempowerement, often imposed on them because of their sex. It is not strictly because of biological sex though, as trans women face much of the same discrimination, and many of the same issues.

I didn't say cis women, I said female-bodied people of any gender identity.

Sex is not gender but that does not mean sex doesn't exist and I do not believe trans men and non-binary female people escape the social consequences of their biological sex.

Hell - I know they don't because I do not have a gender identity as a woman but I sure as hell got my allocated dose of sexism and male encroachment.

That said, I certainly accept that trans women and female people both experience prejudice and sexual predation to the degree that the patriarchal construct of male both rejections and fetishes socially-female-coded things, so there should be many areas where we can join forces. But I'm not convinced that our experiences and reactions, especially around the physical difference of female strength vs male and the fact that rape can result in pregnancy, are similar enough that we have no need to consider sex as relevant.

It is your refusal to even acknowledge the shared struggles that prevents any real solidarity.

Hell no, I massively acknowledge that sex-based gender constructs are a shared struggle for both trans people and gender critical people. I've said many times I think we should be natural allies.

What prevents real solidarity is the insistence that a male person's mental identity as a woman is interchangeable with the lived experience of being female from birth, and that male people, especially those who transition as adults, are automatically considered free from male privilege, socialisation and physical advantages simply because of their gender identity.

All I ask is that trans rights are framed in a way that respects the reality of female lives and oppression, rather than the current "Just let trans women self id and let them have anything that was set up for females" narrative.