Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Labour have committed to single sex spaces

999 replies

flumpetto · 22/09/2021 14:00

Excluding trans

This is a step in the right direction at long last....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
XiXimXerJingping · 23/09/2021 22:09

MissLucyEyelesbarrow, that is really interesting!

teawamutu · 23/09/2021 22:33

@Cerebelle

I just don't understand!!! I'VE ALREADY DONE ALL THE LEGWORK MYSELF, WHY IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT I JUST BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER FUCKING WOMAN!?

Confused There are lots of things that are unachievable no matter how hard you try because they are out of your control. Changing sex is impossible and other people's perceptions are ungovernable. People should treat you courtesly but you can't make them believe a lie.

It reminds me of this tweet.

Both of these people are clearly very troubled and they will never be able to recover while they rely on members of the public to affirm and validate them instead of looking internally.

Somewhat reminded of when the DC were babies and I was trying to teach them to say please.

They'd hold their hand out for the biscuit, I didn't hand it over till they said please.

There was a stage when both of them would hold out their hand and say 'pees' or 'ta' and look at me expectantly. It wasn't a request, it was the incantation which resulted in the biscuit.

ButterflyHatched · 23/09/2021 23:18

@Fitt

I'd support the provision of self-ID on principle simply because the GRA was always an incomplete hackjob that happened to be quite useful within the paradigm of the time, but I'm not sure how to square the circle and make everyone happy, and I'm not convinced there's a way to avoid the 'Brexit effect' of crystallised reactionary stances and catastrophising hyperbole from both sides overwhelming any attempts to seriously conduct a discussion about consequences.

The current "paradigm" has been documented extensively by women over the past few years.

I suggest you stop characterizing women as "reactionary forces" and read some of it. It's not "catastrophising hyperbole".

If everything you know about what women have put forward is second hand from those that describe it that way then you are crystalline already.

Mimmybirthingperson tweeting about the Prosecco stormfront might appeal to your existing prejudice but mimmybirthingperson has a vested interest in stopping people listening to parents and women that disagree.

I'd seen it referred to jokingly in that way but assumed it was hyperbole.

I think it is still largely hyperbole. This forum contains a lot of hurt, angry people, many of whom have been treated atrociously by society and are struggling with their own issues, and seeing what feels like the world jumping on the gender train they have complex feelings regarding and rushing off into the sunset clearly isn't helping.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 23/09/2021 23:36

@NCBlossom

It feels like territory marking.

Invading someone’s territory is where you break down their boundaries, you give them a new identity and take away their old one. You replace the status quo with your own. You repress any opinions with threats, aggression and violence.

That, unfortunately, is what the newer TW feels like to me. At first I was completely OK about it. Each to their own. Except then I realised it wasn’t each to their own. I was being referred to by a name I had never consented to or wanted (cis). I was told that any spaces for women were now not for women. And that although I was a woman, that wasn’t even real anymore, it was all a spectrum. And if I even expressed an opinion about that, then apparently that was akin to ‘war’ and therefore I could have anger, violence unleashed on me because I was no longer allowed to have an opinion about being a woman. That was no longer my territory, it was TWs territory.

Territory marking is such a good phrase NCBlossom
OldCrone · 23/09/2021 23:48

This forum contains a lot of hurt, angry people, many of whom have been treated atrociously by society and are struggling with their own issues

Does it? What makes you think that? I've been posting on here for a few years and I don't think I could make any sort of generalisation about other posters.

NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 00:09

Hurt angry and treated atrociously?

I thought we were middle class wealthy and privileged?

Or was it in the pay of American religious types?

And I've also heard that the gender does not outweigh sex people. Were few and far between and running an army of bots paid for by.. the Russians I think it was?

But also the real target in the UK for people who think sex matters (pretty much everyone in the world) and who were female and spoke about it. Were all the time using this as a front to undermine abortion laws and practices?

I mean it's just so confusing for this little lady to get her head round.

NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 00:10

Oh and anyone who thinks sex matters is racist and homophobic.

Even if, maybe especially if they're a black lesbian.

Shedbuilder · 24/09/2021 00:14

NCBlossom, I prefer to think of it as colonialism. Mainly white, mainly middle class men invading places and spaces where they're not wanted or welcome and then rewriting the rules. Strange that so many of the people supporting this are the same people who are toppling statues of other men who invaded and colonised other countries.

NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 00:15

Is it really so hard to believe that plenty of people simply think that having males in previously single sex things is shit for women and girls?

That thinking it's terrible to have males in the female prison estate?

That's it's grossly unfair and actually dangerous to have males competing against women and girls in sport?

I mean those are things that are blatantly shit and general society does not think it's ok. And no Twitter is not general society.

Butterfly I think was the name of the poster. Can you tell me in simple terms why it is so impossible to believe that anyone decent would think the prisons sports stuff is terrible? And those who feel that way must be damaged/ Nazis/ paid by Russians etc etc?

LobsterNapkin · 24/09/2021 01:44

Tbf other movements have fought to hand things over. And also for people to change their perceptions.

Yeah, and I think this is what well-meaning progressive people are thinking when they support this kind of thing. That it's just people getting the things they really ought to have had a right to all along, or to be seen the way they ought to have been all along.

I always come back to the fact that you have to describe reality truthfully, as your starting place. It never does any good to try and change language, or change social structures, or laws, in a way that is just counter-factual. It's not a problem confined to gender ideology, you see it in overly simplistic analysis in the BLM movement, or weighting race in admissions to elite universities, or when you say that a gay couple should have surrogacy paid for by the state so they are "equal" to straight couples.

What's true isn't always simple or easy to figure out, but hoping for good ends doesn't justify telling ourselves fibs as the means.

NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 01:56

I think you're conflating two things there.

  1. That many supporters think oh same as other causes esp gay rights (which was more prominent then lesbian rights for a variety of reasons) must be good.

And.

  1. Social inequalities. Barriers Vs face fits. Stagnant social mobility. Where you were born and into what circs determining your life path. For all but the most exceptional and determined.
NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 02:03

The first I agree with.

The second I couldn't disagree more.

With elite universities, the example you used. It means that white, often privately educated or from a certain set of high achieving schools in the state sector. And from backgrounds that have been pretty stable and financially secure etc. Are disproportionately represented because they are just better. More able, clever, inquisitive, hard working etc.

If that's not what you mean I'd be interested in understanding what you're getting at.

ButterflyHatched · 24/09/2021 02:22

@OldCrone

This forum contains a lot of hurt, angry people, many of whom have been treated atrociously by society and are struggling with their own issues

Does it? What makes you think that? I've been posting on here for a few years and I don't think I could make any sort of generalisation about other posters.

In the interest of brevity:

You experience living under the patriarchy, right? Many posters here refer to themselves as veterans of the gender wars and have mentioned being the victims of atrocious behaviour.

Not trying to be presumptious; not wanting to appropriate or minimise. Simple observation based on stated facts.

NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 02:49

Your simple observation based on started facts is that this board is populated by women who are... Hurt angry and have been treated atrociously?

Ummmm. Well if that's what you have taken from the threads you've read then that's what you think.

I'm interested though in what your thoughts are on what I asked earlier-

'Is it really so hard to believe that plenty of people simply think that having males in previously single sex things is shit for women and girls?

That thinking it's terrible to have males in the female prison estate?

That's it's grossly unfair and actually dangerous to have males competing against women and girls in sport?'

LobsterNapkin · 24/09/2021 02:52

@NiceGerbil

The first I agree with.

The second I couldn't disagree more.

With elite universities, the example you used. It means that white, often privately educated or from a certain set of high achieving schools in the state sector. And from backgrounds that have been pretty stable and financially secure etc. Are disproportionately represented because they are just better. More able, clever, inquisitive, hard working etc.

If that's not what you mean I'd be interested in understanding what you're getting at.

I have no idea what you mean here.
NiceGerbil · 24/09/2021 03:00

Oh sorry I thought it was clear? Obviously not.

Your post talked about both why so many people are on board with gender > sex.

And also about how you thought that 'weighting race in admissions to elite universities' never did any good.

LobsterNapkin · 24/09/2021 03:14

@NiceGerbil

Oh sorry I thought it was clear? Obviously not.

Your post talked about both why so many people are on board with gender > sex.

And also about how you thought that 'weighting race in admissions to elite universities' never did any good.

I don't think that it is why they think it's true. But they don't think it is odd that a marginalized group would demand access, because as you say, it seems similar to other marginalized groups.

As far as weighting race, there are lots of reasons to think it's very problematic. Maybe one of the most important being that by necessity it means that you are negatively weighting members of other racial groups who are seen to be privileged. As at Harvard, as an Asian applicant you will have to be far better than a white, Hispanic, or black applicant in order to get in. For some reason people don't think that sounds bad if you just say that a white student will have to be relatively better qualified to be accepted, as soon as you say it's an Asian student, people see it for what it is. Marking down these particular kids because of their race.

Not only is it unjust, it institutionalizes jusging students on the basis of race.

But there are also pretty convincing arguments that ultimately, weighting applicants on the basis of race doesn't really advantage them in the end, because they struggle to do as well unless you also weight marking. The university is not usually the best place to remedy the problems that occur earlier on to kids who are poor or disadvantaged in a way that impacts their educational background. It just changes the statistics without addressing the real issues.

ButterflyHatched · 24/09/2021 04:26

@NiceGerbil

Is it really so hard to believe that plenty of people simply think that having males in previously single sex things is shit for women and girls?

That thinking it's terrible to have males in the female prison estate?

That's it's grossly unfair and actually dangerous to have males competing against women and girls in sport?

I mean those are things that are blatantly shit and general society does not think it's ok. And no Twitter is not general society.

Butterfly I think was the name of the poster. Can you tell me in simple terms why it is so impossible to believe that anyone decent would think the prisons sports stuff is terrible? And those who feel that way must be damaged/ Nazis/ paid by Russians etc etc?

I'm not sure I've actually said any of these things, but I think I'm being asked as a general representative so I'll try and give honest answers to the best of my understanding.

Can't promise simple terms. Not good at those.

I think I largely agree with these principles, by the way, just the specifics of definition need adjustment to align with the actual factors under discussion; I think the reality of today's world makes male and female surprisingly tricky ways to define the complex combination of socialisation and physiological factors at play.

Having people who are percieved as males in previously single sex environments evidently makes some women and girls uncomfortable. This also extends to heavily male-socialised trans men, from observation. On a personal level, I'm only able to express extreme gratitude that my presence hasn't, to my knowledge, reliably done so since I was 15, and I found it a particularly wretched experience at the time to generate feelings of obvious discomfort in others simply by existing in their presence. I'm also ashamed to say that I have occasionally experienced similar surprise/awkwardness/discomfort reactions to the presence of non-passing trans women in these spaces due to internalised transphobia. So the wheel turns. It's a miserable ride for everyone.

It's an unforgivable disaster to have known dangerous predators allowed to enter circulation in the female prison estate and I am disgusted that it has been allowed to occur in the past. I have precisely zero sympathy nor tolerance for scum, regardless of their pronouns, and on a personal note, consider people using their transition as a sympathy plea to cover or enable predatory behaviours to be a grotesque betrayal of pretty much every principle I maintain. Ugh. F*cking creep.

I think it's grossly unfair and actually dangerous to have people with a pronounced dimorphic advantage competing against women and girls in sports where the presence of said dimorphism outside the bounds of plausible statistical variances adjusted appropriately for age, height, muscle mass and bone density, carries actual danger. Any muscle mass advantage is long gone but I do have a moderate bone density/height one, even after 20 years. I wouldn't dream of doing it in a professional context where these risks were provably present and it was obvious I had a disproportionate size advantage. I don't give a shit about darts though.

All Nazis I'm aware of are critical of gender, but I don't think gender critical feminists are Nazis. I do think that there are undercurrents amongst some strains of gc feminism that can skew heavily authoritarian and unsavoury unless watched and carefully regulated, and there have unfortunately been some well documented incidents of this happening, but I think this is also true of any political movement.

merrymouse · 24/09/2021 06:29

All Nazis I'm aware of are critical of gender,

I think you are confused about what ‘gender critical’ means.

The Nazi party very much believed in gender and the idea that women should be occupied with ‘Kinder, Kuche, Kirche’.

Gender critical feminists reject the idea that women and men should conform to sex related cultural expectations, and therefore the idea that women should be defined by gender. In particular gender is viewed as a tool of oppression.

This might be upsetting if you strongly believe in gender, but many of the same people will also believe that religion is a tool of oppression without wishing any ill will towards the Archbishop of Canterbury.

However Gender critical feminists do believe that women need specific rights and protections because of their sex, so for instance the Texas abortion law does not impact men and women equally, as the ACLU’s recent tweet would suggest.

Separately, some people who very much believe in gender (e.g. American religious right) are campaigning for enforcement of single sex ‘bathrooms’. These people are not gender critical.

allmywhat · 24/09/2021 06:55

So the wheel turns. It's a miserable ride for everyone.

Third spaces, then? All sorted, no one has to be miserable.

I think the reality of today's world makes male and female surprisingly tricky ways to define the complex combination of socialisation and physiological factors at play.

oh, bollocks to that.

Whether they be external, internal, or instilled deep in the software of the brain by male socialisation. You have/had them, you're male. This is as simple as natural categories get.

I'm glad you are against some of the gross abuses of women that have been facilitated by the modern trans movement. I'm surprised that you don't understand that these escalating abuses of women, and the potential for further and worse abuse, are the reason we are opposed to this movement and its political goals. No other motivation is necessary and there's no need to project one.

(To be fair, it's very rare for transwomen to understand that we are motivated by caring about women. The reasons are best left as an exercise for the reader.)

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/09/2021 07:02

Great response, allmywhat.

334bu · 24/09/2021 07:47

I think I largely agree with these principles, by the way, just the specifics of definition need adjustment to align with the actual factors under discussion; I think the reality of today's world makes male and female surprisingly tricky ways to define the complex combination of socialisation and physiological factors at play.

🤣🤣

Safeguarding of women from men is necessary because men present a statistically proven danger to women.
Statistics and research show males who identify as women are just as dangerous to women as any other males, so why in earth should women be put in danger by allowing this group of males into places where women are vulnerable? Where is the logic in that?

Helleofabore · 24/09/2021 08:01

I think the reality of today's world makes male and female surprisingly tricky ways to define the complex combination of socialisation and physiological factors at play.

No. It really isn’t.

It remains rather simple actually.

Because women ONLY actually share the fact that they are the sexual class that has a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the production of said gametes occurs for whatever reason.

The entire body is coded with cells that are designed for this specific purpose.

Women’s millennia of oppression is due their bodies being formed around this purpose. It forms the basis of sexist discrimination.

Puberty blockers and cosmetic changes will never remove the formation of the pelvis that will mean a male will have a certain way of walking. As a person with sight difficulties, I have discovered my brain picks up things like this and filters people accurately into male and female. Because I cannot see the clothing clearly, or the hair style at a certain distance but once they come into focus, I already have resolved which sex.

The same for faces. The brow, the ratios of the facial structure. Unless they have been changed artificially, this will not be removed by blocking puberty or CSH. And sometimes hand size.

I think that when it is important to someone’s life to believe they fully ‘pass’, they must find it impossible to hear differently. That something will have given them away and that females have been programmed through socialisation to cover fear and consternation to be imperceptible to males.

And again, why do males not understand that even after ‘getting away’ with accessing female spaces, immense harm can be caused by women realising that this person who they throught was female, is male. But their sense of security, their confidence in that space being safe for them, has been destroyed. Simply because someone felt it was their right to breach that boundary because of gender.

And getting back to those bodies formations as females, there are now extensive studies that show that even years of CSH do not remove the advantages that come from having a body formed around the production of small gametes and generally has produced male levels of testosterone during the course of their life.

Even a partial male puberty will deliver these advantages. Again, pelvis configuration, skeletal proportions (leverage for instance), muscle type, heart and lung size, oxygen access, is just a few that are not affected. And that muscle mass you mentioned, even now you will likely be stronger than the average female of your age group. Grip strength doesn’t seem to be affected. Nor does skull strength, nor the robustness of your brain’s nerve fibres meaning your brain will withstand trauma better than a female. And now they even realize that males have faster brain reaction to stimulus.

And let us not forget, the affects of menstruation on female athletes. Males who do not have menstruation issues will always have an advantage. The female body even can have greater propensity to have ligament damage during specific times of the cycle. Something that a male will never have to consider.

So, no. A male, even with partial virtualization will have advantages. I cannot see how anyone, once they understand this, can suggest a case by case scenario where an athletes entire body is scanned and modeled to assess whether there is unfair advantage. How will this work? exactly?

Meanwhile, we have the OIC now acknowledging that this is the case. Yet determined to follow the ‘we’ll be inclusive anyway’ model.

And those very advantages means that females really do understand who is male, despite extensive work to change that male body.

my answer is #nothankyou.

Helleofabore · 24/09/2021 08:02

Sex class not sexual class

teawamutu · 24/09/2021 08:05

I think the reality of today's world makes male and female surprisingly tricky ways to define the complex combination of socialisation and physiological factors at play.

It's a tricky question for those who don't like the existing, and perfectly logical, answer.

Swipe left for the next trending thread