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

Perhaps you could explain why a) it is a war and b) how come you think the erosion of women’s rights after the event is a debate.

You think you don’t have power or privilege in op.

So what do you have then every time you access a female space? You do it knowing that women as a sex class were not consulted on how to keep them as sex class safe whilst you access those spaces, let alone asked if it was ok to access the spaces in the first place.

This is what we mean by power. You have power over us. Do you understand now how this is holding power over women?

I don’t want to turn this into a you versus us. It never should have been like that. Men made decisions for us. They made them for you. And as a former man, you went along with them… and your presence in women’s toilets is contributing to the erosion of women’s rights whether or not you choose to accept this.

So why can’t men’s spaces be unisex? And women’s spaces single sex? Why can’t the bandwidth of what it means to be a man be widened? It would solve all multitude of issues.

Sorry to revisit this thread ...

Guardian yesterday (14/10) has a letter which would seem to echo an idea put forward in this thread

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/14/the-polarised-debate-on-transgender-and-womens-rights

I have no illusions that such a thing could/would happen but ...

so just posting the link cos good ideas are good ideas (@highame & @LobsterNapkin) ...

So long since I last read the Guardian that I am horrified by all those science-denying, be-kind responses.

No mention of the fact that Phillippa Punchard has written a book on 'gender pioneers' either. Very disingenuous.

every single one of those letters was frankly cuckoo. in a wide field, i think this was my favourite piece of batshittery:

However, the article itself refers to the more damning opinion that the professor expressed, that people cannot change their biological sex. Regardless of how narrowly anyone chooses to interpret that statement, it does seem to deny trans men and trans women, or those who are intersex, the right to exist. The Guardian’s poor record of reporting on trans matters continues

bonkers

Glad to see you saying that. I felt as if I'd wandered into a parallel universe where everyone else knows that of course you can change your sex... Totally batshit.

The compromise happened in 2004 and in 2021 women are being raped and assaulted in previously single sex spaces, they are being injured or losing places in female sport, they are no longer permitted to choose the language to describe their own experiences and children are being set on a course of life long medical treatment before they are legally old enough to consent to sex or obtain a driving licence.

There is no room for compromise because what's being demanded is total capitulation, I refuse. The GRA needs to be repealed, it sets a precedent for very bad law making. Other than that I fully support the rights of trans people to live their life free from all discrimination or harassment, this can easily be achieved without eroding women's rights, it just requires us to stop enabling lying about biological sex.

The only thing I want to "win" back is all the rights we have lost so far, the right to the safety of single sex spaces, fairness in sport and the right to express myself freely without being vilified.

Didn't see this thread when it first came up. I saw a tweet last week that summed up a lot of the 'polarisation'. It said it all came down to disagreeing on which sex segregated spaces trans people should access under which circumstances. It said at the extremes you had 'all and always' and 'none and never' and then in between you had 'sometimes and sometimes'. I think the 'sometimes and sometimes' people, like Kathleen Stock, present the biggest threat to the TRAs.

This summary doesn't address the healthcare for children issues. I expect the polarisation here is to suggest we ignore gender related aspects and focus on other underlying causes of distress and ignore all other underlying causes or potential underlying causes and focus on gender issues. In between would be calling to gather more evidence about what is going on and why in relation to gender issues, and in the meantime be open minded about all possibilities.

Didn't see this thread when it first came up. I saw a tweet last week that summed up a lot of the 'polarisation'. It said it all came down to disagreeing on which sex segregated spaces trans people should access under which circumstances. It said at the extremes you had 'all and always' and 'none and never' and then in between you had 'sometimes and sometimes'. I think the 'sometimes and sometimes' people, like Kathleen Stock, present the biggest threat to the TRAs.

This is an excellent point. "Sometimes and sometimes" requires effort though. It's not a belief in innate gender pinkness or blueness.

"All and always" is an acceptance of a belief system. "None and never" is both a rejection of a belief system and (often) a change in position from "sometimes and sometimes".

The logical conclusion of "all and always" is entirely unisex provision for all humans, but that isn't what is wanted. "All and always" is the least logical position to take because it defeats itself; entirely unisex provision is not validating enough.

all and always and some an sometimes both involve pretending that men (as a class) aren't violent to women (as a class), and don't use women as sexual props in a thoroughly unpleasant way.

The compromise happened in 2004 [with the Gender Recognition Act] and in 2021 women are being raped and assaulted in previously single sex spaces, they are being injured or losing places in female sport, they are no longer permitted to choose the language to describe their own experiences and children are being set on a course of life long medical treatment

These are facts. This is the core of the problem. Women have been compromising on this issue for years. The results make life worse and worse for women.

Every ‘compromise’ means women giving away some of our rights, and children being exposed to more harm.