what does it mean "live as a woman"?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I gather that in order for a male person who believes themselves to be feminine they have to "live as their acquired gender" for 2 years in order to get a GRC.

Is there a definition of how women live? Because I don't think I qualify.

all the current evidence was on one side.

And those arguing for a different outcome relied on emotional manipulation, flawed data and after the decision was made, lies about having no representation despite the person who influenced the IOC committee being there.

@ButterflyHatched

If I may propose a question to posters on this thread, as I feel that the way it reveals the presence of subjective inner awareness of self is hugely relevant to this discussion:

-What 'causes' homosexuality?
-If you are homosexual, how did that make itself known to you?
-How would you describe your own awareness of subjective factors of sexual attraction to a straight person who has never experienced them?
-How would you have described it to clinicians intent on classifying it as a psychiatric disorder - which it still was within the living memory of some of the posters here?
-How would (did?) you respond to legislation banning it being discussed in schools?

It's interesting to think about what causes homosexuality. If we find a genetic marker for it, for example, there will undoubtedly be an increase in foetuses aborted for being homosexual. But so what? That doesn't affect homosexuals who already exist, who have already been born. Maybe we test in childhood. Then what? It depends on what happens next. If we put all children with homosexual genes in a concentration camp, it's the concentration camp that's the problem. Maybe countries could strip tested and verified homosexuals of their passports, or their freedom, or their lives. It would still be the mistreatment that is the problem. Homophobia is different to racism because you generally can't hide your race, whereas it is possible to repress homosexual feelings and live in secrecy. In countries where women get married off as children and have no say in who their husband is, if and when he might rape her, or how many children she will bear, there's no possibility of women even being acknowledged as having active desire for men or women, and fuck all chance of a woman's wants and desires being respected. So the 2% of women in those countries who are lesbians live the same lives as their straight sisters - rape, domestic servitude, no human rights. They still exist. Homosexual and bisexual people still live in the closet here. It's perfectly possible to repress one's sexuality. It's very upsetting and limiting to do so, of course. But ultimately being a homosexual requires no input from straight people. I don't need anyone else to play along, because I simply exist as a homosexual woman, and follow the same rules as everyone else. I don't require anyone to pretend I'm something I'm not, I don't call myself straight and then try to revise the meaning of straight to include being exclusively same-sex attracted, I don't require my legal documents to be amended to reflect a legal fiction, I just exist and pursue mutually desired relationships with other lesbian women. It doesn't cost anyone else any rights.

It would be really easy to describe my sexuality to a straight person, as previous posters have already done. If it was a psychiatric disorder, then I'd describe it to clinicians in the same way. The reason it isn't seen as such any more is because it doesn't cause any distress in the individual; homophobia might, be it internalised or externalised, but being black isn't a psychiatric disorder even though racism causes distress in the individual. There's no disorder in being homosexual, the background to homophobia is rooted in religion, patriarchal expectations and obsession with reproductive capacity, especially in females.
How did I respond to Section 28? I voted Labour and they got rid of it. It affected me at school, I didn't want it to affect other children.

But if everyone in this thread, or everyone in the whole world did nothing, and stopped interacting with me entirely, I'd still be a lesbian. If I was on a desert island alone, I'd still be a lesbian. A trans person relies on other people validating their inner beliefs. People could tell me homosexuals don't exist and I could have grown up believing that was true, but I'd still have a physical reaction to a woman I was attracted to, so I'd still be homosexual.

If nobody offered medical and surgical treatment for dysphoria, and if nobody agreed that trans people existed, and men could and did wear what women normally wear, and styled themselves in ways that were the same as most women - what is left of the "trans" in anyone? Does it even exist?
Historically there was no option to transition - what happened to those people? How did they express their transness? Specifically straight trans people, where homosexuality wasn't a factor? Where are their thoughts, their theories, their diaries?
We know women's writing has been suppressed and plagiarised and buried. But if 1%,2% of men are trans, and the majority of those men are straight (born male attracted to born female), where is the proof they existed?
And why is homosexuality observed in animals but transness isn't? Certainly suggests a biological factor in homosexuality that isn't replicated in transness.

I do think that sport will be the last word in all of this, with or without Ross Tucker.

It's the whole thing immediately visible, incontrovertible.

I spent enough years teaching various aspects of sports science to know that all the bluster about testosterone won't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny by people with only a passing interest.

The disparity is immediately visible, even if you are looking at the smallest man next to the largest woman, across all sports and, yet again, those hips just don't lie!

Datun

"These sorts of conversations should be happening in the public domain.

The questions should be asked and answered. With experts in various fields on hand to translate studies and laws"

I do think it's at a tipping point. The Labour conference last week was in stark contrast to the Tory one this week with Lammy's marvellous cervix nonsense and Baroness Nicholson's panel of women who were barely able to contain their rage.

All of this is information I have found here on Mumsnet. Few other places seem brave enough to discuss it.

It can't last. It is crumbling. Stonewall is literally a keystone in all of this and Stonewall's guidance to my office is absolute bolleaux.

If a woman says "no" she deserves to be listened to. Any "no", from any woman, at any time, in any situation. If you don't think a woman's "no" deserves to be heard then I really don't see that you are any different from a rapist.

Which is what I told my employer. Which is why I'm in trouble.

I'm bloody right, though.

@Eucalyptustrees

Taking the statistic quoted in the recent Bari Weiss report that 1 in 20 females at university are now identifying as trans as a data point, and assuming that the assurances we have had that this is because of a more accepting society of something that has always existed, what we are expected to believe is probably more impactful on the human race than climate change.

5 percent of 4 billion females have been wrongly determined as female. That's 200 million females world wide that need their bodies altering. The human race gets it wrong 5 percent of the time and it's the right side of history to provide drugs and surgery to remake 200 million females into an approximation of a male body.

And this has been the case for the whole of human existence but we are only just realising this now we have anesthesia and antibiotics to perform the surgery.

Or maybe, as that's fucking nuts, and something else is going on.

It all becomes very expensive doesn't it

It does. Why were we messing about with COVID when we have a medical emergency that needs a global program of hormones and surgery rolled out immediately.

At about 100 thousand USD a female that's 20 trillion the world needs to find to deal with this human rights imperative.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Datun

"These sorts of conversations should be happening in the public domain.

The questions should be asked and answered. With experts in various fields on hand to translate studies and laws"

I do think it's at a tipping point. The Labour conference last week was in stark contrast to the Tory one this week with Lammy's marvellous cervix nonsense and Baroness Nicholson's panel of women who were barely able to contain their rage.

All of this is information I have found here on Mumsnet. Few other places seem brave enough to discuss it.

It can't last. It is crumbling. Stonewall is literally a keystone in all of this and Stonewall's guidance to my office is absolute bolleaux.

If a woman says "no" she deserves to be listened to. Any "no", from any woman, at any time, in any situation. If you don't think a woman's "no" deserves to be heard then I really don't see that you are any different from a rapist.

Which is what I told my employer. Which is why I'm in trouble.

I'm bloody right, though.

You are right.

And with the public being very aware now of exactly how many women are getting subjected to male violence, it's all going hand-in-hand.

I struggle to accept that the tipping point is taking this effing long tho. Which leads me to conclude that it is probably more like a gentle lifting and everything just slowly slipping off the edge. Quietly and unheralded, certainly by the general public.

But, at least it will be done.

And that's just for females. Affirmation only for boys? Another 20 trillion?

Eucalyptustrees
Absolutely, and to counter the issues with phalloplasty complications, perhaps they should campaign for 200 million cadaveric penis donors. I'm sure that request will be treated with the consideration it deserves.

Or maybe, as that's fucking nuts, and something else is going on.

Amen!

How would you describe your own awareness of subjective factors of sexual attraction to a straight person who has never experienced them?

Same-sex attracted woman [to opposite-sex attracted man]: You know how you experience shortness of breath when looking at Catherine Deneuve? So do I.

Job done.
Or did you mean, explain sexual attraction to someone without a sexual orientation?

Provided they were in fact adults (I'm not talking about sexual arousal to children), I'd just get a medical dictionary, explain the symptoms of sexual arousal, and explain that different people experience these physical responses to the opposite sex, some to the same sex and some to both sexes.

Doesn't seem that difficult.

As the reproductive process gets it so fundamentally wrong 5 percent of the time I am at a loss to understand why we are not already taking the next capitalist step so desired and setting up agencies worldwide to swap organs.

Must be the best way?

@Eucalyptustrees

As the reproductive process gets it so fundamentally wrong 5 percent of the time I am at a loss to understand why we are not already taking the next capitalist step so desired and setting up agencies worldwide to swap organs.

Must be the best way?

There's a trade deal to be done there! Especially if there's an imbalance and one country has more transwomen and another more transmen

Couldn't agree more! Our minds form in response to their experiences, and even if later experiences challenge our learned behaviours, it's often a conscious effort to fight them. We all have different experiences.

Yes and no. We have individual experiences, but humans evolved as herd animals which means we are influenced by the herd and share a large number of the same experiences because of it.

There's interesting research into the herd behaviour of humans which shows that under certain circumstances we no longer behave as individuals at all and instinctively follow the movements and behaviours of the herd.

At its root, human socialisation benefits the herd as well as the individual. There is a reason why little girls are socialised to care for others - there is an evolutionary benefit in training the primary caretakers of human newborns to be able to take care of them AND to feel the desire to do so. And with few exceptions every individual benefited from that socialisation as a newborn. (Even today, the primary caretakers of human newborns are almost always female. It makes sense therefore to equip members of the female sex with the necessary skills even today.)

The problem with socialisation that we are concerned with as feminists is that there's a whole range of other attributes that have become part of the package in patriarchal societies. And many of those attributes now benefit neither the herd nor most female individuals.

At what age does maleness become irrevocably and inescapably encoded, in your opinion?

At conception. But I think you're asking here about male socialisation which governs behaviour. The BBC broadcast a documentary a few years ago which showed that there are large measurable sex differences in behaviour due to the effects of socialisation by age four. I believe there is research showing it even earlier*, but four is what I'm sure of.

Now I'm not saying we cannot unpack some aspects of our socialisation and consciously counteract attributes we believe to be unhelpful or unhealthy to ourselves, but I am saying we cannot rid ourselves of all of it because our minds have been irrevocably and inescapably encoded in line with male or female socialisation on the basis of our sex long before we are aware of it.

*The fact that sex differences in behaviour can be measured even earlier is the reason why there is fierce debate amongst certain researchers into nature vs nurture (See Debra Soh and others. However, they reject gender identity ideology too, because their theories derive from sex differences rooted in biology, not innate feelings).

I think Emily Thornbury should get on to that immediately as the Labour shadow minister for international trade. She is pretty clear on organ assignment and can get the job done. @FlyingOink

I’ll give you periods - I have periods, most women have/will have/have had periods. And conversely, it’s true that no one born without a uterus has periods. The thing is, I don’t regard having periods as a significant part of who I am, or a defining life experience. In addition, my experience of having periods differs from that of many other women (in terms of heaviness, level of pain, emotional changes), so it’s not like we’re all even having the same experiences.

Thank you, Helen8220. We have our biology in common. Good to see you agree. Now I didn't ask what you consider significant or what matters to qho you are as an individual - those are feelings and beliefs, not the material facts of our existence.

What you me and every female human who has ever lived on this planet have in common is our female biology. What we all have in common with every male human who has ever lived on this planet is that we are human.

So I ask you again, because you insist on grouping some male people with female people, what material facts do you and me have in common with all female people and those select few male people that we do not also have in common with all other male people?

So what do I have in common - that actually matters in terms of who I am - with you or any other woman, that I don’t have in common with @ButterflyHatched ?

Well, that doesn't work Helen8220 because there is nothing that you can have in common with every female person on this planet that matters in terms of who you are, because that's a question about personality and identity, two highly individual expressions of ourselves.

I do not doubt that you have many things in common with ButterflyHatched, and I may well have things in common with you both, but apart from being members of the same species living on the same planet there is nothing all three of us have in common with all other female people.

So on what basis are we grouped together by you?

I think sex is complicated and it manifests as a cloud of genetic, instantaneous and historical hormonal, and psychological datapoints that combine together to give us an overall picture of a person.

May I ask, ButterflyHatched on what basis exactly you reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Excellent post as always @CharlieParley! Many thanks for responding.

How would you define maleness (the non-socialisation component), as you see it, as defined at conception?

As a theoretical 'maxwell's demon' level thought experiement:
If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces?
What if that 46XY child was born with female primary sex characteristics?

@CharlieParley

I think sex is complicated and it manifests as a cloud of genetic, instantaneous and historical hormonal, and psychological datapoints that combine together to give us an overall picture of a person.

May I ask, ButterflyHatched on what basis exactly you reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

@CharlieParley - I don't think I understand the question as I've never asserted this

Care to explain your logic? What part of any of my posts here do you think qualifies as a rejection of evolution?

Nope. I won't let that pass.

DSDs are not a trans issue.

Stop trying to use them to make your science defying illogic.

You are wrong. That is utterly abhorrent and only proves that there is no depth you will not plumb in your attempt to justify your illogic.

But, as ever, I won't be reporting it. Let it stand so all readers, lurkers, occasional guests, can see just how little you care about anyone else. All is grist to your mill!

If I wasn't plain enough, I have already pointed out that many people with DSDs have asked not to be used in this debate.

As usual gender ideologists can't accept a polite request and here you are, again using another cohort of people to shore up your lack of logic.

Such complete and utter disregard, the use of a medical condition to make your point, that disgusts me.

If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces?

I'd say no, for the same reason as any other mammal. I don't believe it's possible to train any mammal to act as the opposite sex.

Although maybe I'm wrong. I'm not an animal trainer. Feedback welcome.

In particular, can you train a male mammal to not respond to females?

Are there any instances where this training is relied on to put mixed animals together, rather than separation, castration or supervision?

Said child, or mammal would be kept in a box for life, to meet those requirements, so it wouldn't matter who, where, etc.

The only impartial system is an absent one.

If a 46XY child was subjected to 'female' socialisation from the moment of birth by a completely impartial system (not subject to the usual subconscious biases that inevitably creep in), would you allow that child to be present in female-only spaces?
What if that 46XY child was born with female primary sex characteristics?

If a person has a female phenotype and is brought up as a girl but is actually male, I am quite happy to include them in women's spaces, as they would be perceived as female.

What relevance does this have to a boy growing up stating that they want to be a girl? Or a man wanting to "live as" a woman?

I am fairly certain that it's irrelevant to the issue of trans people that there's a rare condition in which people naturally appear to be of the opposite sex.