Sex/Gender Wars - What would be a win?

[joolzfromyork]

As the Title ...

What's a win? for you individually?

I read here .. on Twatter and one or two other places and it is clear that for some GC Women (and Men) a win would be the banning of Puberty blockers being given to those you see as being children...

At the other extreme ... the banning completely of Transition and any medical interventions to help Transsexual people...

It's reasonable to believe that the majority view falls somewhere between these two points ... but where?

There is no real consensus that has emerged which all GC people subscribe to ...

So, I wonder ... what's a win? what would make you believe that this issue had been solved/dealt with to your satisfaction ?

Anyone like to have a stab at this one?

The question involves no trickery, Honest opinions - however blunt - are sought (Hopefully the mods will adopt a light touch ...) but I am interested because I remain convinced that a path to compromise exists ... and whilst we won't find it here on MN, I would like to understand better what people 'really' want, as distinct from what the loudest voices claim they want ... what do you want to happen?

Of course, since I am asking the question, it goes without saying that extra credit can be gained through the use of 'Flippancy' and 'Sarcasm' ... so, by all means, Have at it.

But if anyone could/would have a go at answering the question, I'd be grateful

For female only spaces to be female only and gender neutral to be recognised for what it is - mixed. Two events in the olympics one a female only event for those biologically females and an open events for anyone else - the way it always was.

Lobster Napkin

I agree with that

I thought that Highame put forward an interesting idea - course you and I and everyone else on this thread do not have the power to bring something like that about - mores the pity ... But yeah ... its forms the basis of a very good idea.

I have just been reading a book about people being stuck on an island (which I have given to someone else and my perimenopausal brain has now forgotten the title).

If we are taking JUST the title into consideration then sex would win.

Put young trans women and young men on an uninhabited island with enough resources in equal numbers.

Put young women and young men on another uninhabited island with enough resources in equal numbers.

Come back in 70 years. Who’s ‘won’?

However of course if you include trans men and trans women on the island then you’ll get succession too. But the point is, stripped back to basics, back to essentials, it’s biology not gender. And you need the correct terminology of the word woman for the basics. Health and welfare and reproduction.

joolzfromyork (OP) wrote - "if an individual wants to use blockers at the age of 16 then ok ... because all human beings have autonomy over their own bodies and life decisions."

People who have a male body almost always have autonomy over their own body. People who have a female body have much less autonomy - e.g. laws against abortion of a heathy foetus after a certain time limit in the UK or some other countries, or abortion of a foetus in any condition at any stage of pregnancy in many other countries.

Well this is an interesting thread. Because it's one thing to say you're concerned about women's spaces etc but there are so many people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them, it's just a very particular kind of controlling cruelty, and goes to show a significant number of regular posters here just simply don't want trans people to exist, based purely on their own personal bigotry and discomfort.

So if nothing else this is now a very handy thread when people protest "we're not transphobic on mumsnet, we just have ~concerns" - no, plenty of you just plain don't like trans people and are delighted that the GC movement has given you a means to legitimise and weaponise that dislike.

there are so many people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them, it's just a very particular kind of controlling cruelty, and goes to show a significant number of regular posters here just simply don't want trans people to exist, based purely on their own personal bigotry and discomfort.
In what way are we trying to restrict aspects of trans people's lives?
No one here is suggesting that trans people should face discrimination because of the way they live or that they should cease to exist.
Everyone has human rights which should be respected.

As a teacher, I know lots and lots of "trans" female children. Far more than I ever should. I don't hate them. I feel like a bloody she-wolf protecting her cubs about them.

Don't you dare tell me I don't like "trans" people.

Awww shit ... (yeah yeah,I should have known) ...

people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them

examples please @BlueberryCheezecake

Tier 2 would only be available to individuals who have completed both social and medical transition (what we refer to as Post-Op). This tier would give access to a Women's Prison if req

this from the OP also seems to have been lost. I presume the Tier 2 certificate would also grant access to female hospital wards. We already know the OP uses women's toilets.

Do not come away from this conversation believing that the OP thinks women should have any spaces that don't have men in them

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

You know the great thing about posting stuff on't net is that it lives on forever ... so don't be shy about this stuff

Post a link ... or post a copy and paste

Have at it ... you'll get no objections from me

People may not like what I say/have said but ya know ... tis their right

Post the links ... make an argument (I probably wont join in cos as I seem to have said about 100 times already ... this thread is me asking (and when necessary answering) questions.

But don't be shy ... I get slapped by both sides of this debate

Bothers me not at all

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them

examples please @BlueberryCheezecake

Yes, come on you've made a bold assertion @BlueberryCheezecake, let's see the evidence of that.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Tier 2 would only be available to individuals who have completed both social and medical transition (what we refer to as Post-Op). This tier would give access to a Women's Prison if req

this from the OP also seems to have been lost. I presume the Tier 2 certificate would also grant access to female hospital wards. We already know the OP uses women's toilets.

Do not come away from this conversation believing that the OP thinks women should have any spaces that don't have men in them

IANAL but I don't think legally this is possible.

One of the reasons I believe the original GRC process wasn't able to ring fence to post op SRS people is because it's not lawful to insist that surgery be a conditional requirement.

Which I understand because in a wider legal sense forced medical treatment in return for something as a legal precedent isn't a path we should want to go down. Although we came close to that with vaccine passports.

So a tiered system would almost certainly be challenged and won by non op people.

This is why the whole thing is a mess because the basic premise is an untruth which policy and law is trying to make a reality.

Ah I read the title as ‘what would win’ so ignore my previous answer.
what would be a win would be for children and adults to understand basic biology : human sex chromosomes cannot change and people cannot become another sex. Therefore at the moment of a successful sperm fertilising an egg, that’s the sex. It is so basic but essential I can’t believe some people even believe you can change sex. And then from there the differences of the sexes and why from a physical point of view, women and men have different categories in sport and why healthcare needs are different.

[quote joolzfromyork]@PickAChew

do you think it is OK that Barbie Kardashian is in a women's prison?

Absolutely Not

Do you think our collective sense of horror at this situation, given BK's history, is purely from a place of anti-transsexual sentiment?

No

Do you not understand why we don't want to give up any rights for women to have safe spaces away from dangerous male bodied people like BK, or Karen White?

I understand that perfectly

Or any male at all to find another lawful way of being alone with a woman, no matter how vulnerable and traumatised she may already be?

Obviously, I understand all of this (and support it)[/quote]
Do you know if there are any trans groups with those who feel similar to you, acting on these sorts of things?

Do you know of any/ heard of any?

BK is Ireland obv and well. Past extreme. Why on earth not in a Broadmoor type place is baffling.

In UK this issue is current though.

If there is a desire to meet in the middle. Then where is the action? I see many trans individuals state they are v unhappy on Twitter with the impact on women.

Women are fighting this more or less on our own. The general feel is that in media etc the demands and viewpoints of trans activists incrementally worse for women by the day.

Eg

It never happens
It happens but women do it to. Prisons etc need better risk assessment
TW are v shy of bodies wouldn't use communal changing etc
Women's things are for all women. If not happy with sharing then bigot.
Claiming to be trans to access these spaces won't happen. Why do to all that effort men who want can attack nothing can be done
Report of male behaving v inappropriately in naked spa definitely hoax
Woman v Christian so lying
Children need to get used to random dicks when they have no clothes on. Don't look it's rude
Penis is just skin what's the problem
Clear that male sex offence history is due to police transphobia trumped up charges

What the fuck are we supposed to do??

Where are the transpeople who think terrible? And who are negatively affected by all this themselves?

Tier 2 would only be available to individuals who have completed both social and medical transition (what we refer to as Post-Op). This tier would give access to a Women's Prison if req

So male people will organise a system amongst other male people on what male people get to commandeer of female resources and places, and where the lines are that respect some of female people's issues and needs will they?

Meanwhile non disabled people will draw up the tiers of what able bodied people can take from disabled people, and white people will draw up the tiers of just how much they take away from BAME people before it becomes a little Bit Much?

No. Just stop and question why male people feel entitled to agree this amongst themselves and why they feel female people's only role in this is to be told afterwards what male people have decided, instead of these decisions being made by female people for female people and letting male people know the outcome?

Well obviously, because they'd come back with an answer that male people found really inconvenient.

Look, practically, who is going to stand at the door of a female only provision and demand to see a tier 2 or whatever certificate? And this still means places like loos are a free for all with no gate keeping of any male at any time under any circumstances which means many females left with no loo and no resource and no access so male people can have the experience of freedom of choice and best fit to meet their more important needs. This is the bit that is NOT ok.

Women say ok, fine, have a third space. Call it womens, make it mixed sex, and it goes alongside a female only space so everyone's needs are met.

The answer is no, no third spaces, male people find them othering and upsetting at the reminder that they are TW and not female, and are being kept out of female spaces.

It's much, much better that some females are excluded and harmed and left without provision than male people have any boundaries they have to deal with.

This is the essence of it. Male people unable to accept female boundaries and female rights to set them, and to deal with 'no'. This suggestion merely involves setting boundaries where some males benefit and get past the no but others don't. We've tried that. It was called the GRA/GRCs. What it's proved is that if any male is given an inch then male people as a sex class will take every single mile they can possibly acquire. If it's one, it's all.

So no. Male people as a sex class need to take responsibility for this and create new additional spaces for male people who need additional to and different from sex based spaces. Inclusive for all male people regardless of gender.

Is this like a repeat of the thread last week where a male was posting to have females come up with a solution where males can prise open the definition of female and woman to adequately include those males for the male’s benefit.

And using every emotionally manipulative tool to do it.

Now we have blueberry here with their usual take.

people here who want to restrict aspects of trans people's lives that have literally no affect them

Please come back with examples Blueberry of the aspects of trans people’s lives that we want to restrict that have, how did you phrase it, literally no affect on women and children.

Be very specific for once please. Usually it is hidden in ambiguity.

Male people unable to accept female boundaries and female rights to set them, and to deal with 'no'.

Yup

It is very noticeable on this thread that ‘No’ was instantly translated into ‘you hate me!’

NRTFT, but:
1 Gender ideology as a belief system banned from schools and any organisations that work with children and young people. Children all to be taught that anyone can wear any colour, play with any toy and be interested in anything and that's okay. Death to gender stereotypes. (Didn't we think we'd done this?)
2 No physical interventions for anyone under 18: psychotherapy aimed at challenging assumptions and accepting sexuality and fears, no puberty blockers, no surgery, no hormones.
3 A return to single-sex spaces on the say-so of the users. The bar for challenging this would be extremely high.
4 Funders banned from insisting on inclusivity as a criterion for giving charities/ third sector organisations money. We've seen how badly this has backfired. Organisations that work with marginalised or traumatised groups can only be inclusive of others to the detriment of their core users.
5 High-level challenges to queer theory in universities and other organisations. Constitutions rewritten to require more stringent understanding of how 'more equality' can end up with less equality than ever.
6 Abolition of the Gender Reform Act.
7 Stonewall to become a TQ+ only lobby group and lose all its LGB credibility.

I can go on and on. But we really do need to weed this out root and branch.

6 Sorry, Gender Recognition Act 2004.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Male people unable to accept female boundaries and female rights to set them, and to deal with 'no'.

Yup

It is very noticeable on this thread that ‘No’ was instantly translated into ‘you hate me!’

All of Artichoke's full post but especially this bit.

And a bit of reflection on what happens when you push women into corners, and how much this is really helping trans people in general (hint: it's making things worse) wouldn't hurt.

those you see as being children

a path to compromise exists ... and whilst we won't find it here on MN

waits for the slapping thats coming my way because I use the female toilets in my workplace

Whatever are you talking about? All I did was ask a question ... Then tried (honestly) to answer questions posed to me in return.

This conversation appears to have left its point a long way behind us ...You don't like/trust/care/give a shit for transsexual people ... ok

And I asked a question here ... Foolish of me? perhaps

I get slapped by both sides of this debate

Nah
No thanks.

Mmmm (flying oink) I like that ,,, very good

And for the avoidance of doubt I am not asking you ‘to meet me in the middle’ but rather ‘where do you think the middle is’?

Hi @joolzfromyork I think it would be best if we tried to just accept that everybody is different. I've never understood the banning transition thing, it's like banning someone from having cancer surgery, would you want that?

I'm not going to tell anyone how to live their lives, I don't think anyone should have the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives.