Does anyone else feel that the tone has changed on this board?

[ViceLikeBlip]

This board has been incredibly important to me, especially when I felt like I was losing my mind because no one else seemed to see a problem with self ID, and everyone else seemed to believe TWAW (or, I now realise, everyone else was too scared to suggest they might not believe TWAW).

You guys helped me rationalise my thoughts, and realise I wasn't some awful transphobe, and I've been really grateful to be part of this community. And I really felt like I belonged: we were pro women's rights, not anti trans rights, and we didn't believe that all transwomen are dangerous perverts but rather we recognised that dangerous perverts do exist, and they will readily take advtange of any loophole that gives them access to women.

More than anything, you guys have been an absolute mine of information - facts, stats, latest developments, and you've pointed me in the direction of news articles and twitter rows that I never would have seen otherwise. I'm genuinely grateful for this.

But recently the mood seems to have shifted significantly. There seems to be a lot of open animosity and ridicule towards all things trans. The recent outcry about M&S letting some people put their pronouns on their name badges felt uncomfortably close to clamouring to have M&S "cancelled".

I guess I used to feel like this was a safe space where I was with like minded people, but now I don't think everyone on here can hand-on-heart maintain that they're not anti-trans anymore, and it makes me very upset to see this shift happening (and happening quickly).

OvaHere that's a very good idea.

I agree, the statistics are very important when lobbying politicians, demanding impact assessments and pursuing litigation

Going slightly off here, but this brings to mind the old saying, there's lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Stats have been manipulated over and over again to further the trans movement. So many parents worried that their children will commit suicide if they are not supported and validated to transition. And it's repeated over and over again, like Chinese whispers (are we still allowed to say that?), by MPs, by people in power, by people in charge of policy making. This ranges from over half of trans people having apparently considered suicide to over half of people actually committing suicide. Which just isn't true. And the 'research' fails to consider transitioning as a symptom rather than a cause. And the basis for which so much policy has been based on. What many people don't realise or understand that this was based on a sample of just 27 self selecting trans people who ticked the box saying they had thought about suicide in the past. 27 self selecting people? This has moved close to Wakefield territory. I think there should certainly be more robust research in this area. I would support that and it should happen.But basing policy on dubious and poorly executed research on a tiny sample of self selected people. It is right here where much of the problems we see today started from.

This is a great post by @LobsterNapkin

The concept of the "trans" person was quite different. You had people with sex dysphoria for whom living as the other sex was a sort of mitigating treatment path. They were trans in the sense that they were living as the other sex, but their diagnosis was a dysphoric disorder. There was no innately "trans" person in the way people think, for example, of an innately gay person. The main connection with sexuality is that many of the men were gay and that was related to their dysphoria.

Then the idea changed and the argument seemed to be that a trans person was someone with some kind of not-yet-understood intersex brain, and they were "really" the other sex, mentally speaking. So, truly, a trans person. And lots of people thought that seemed plausible and some still do.

But I think there are less people now who believe that. In part because the scientific evidence doesn't seem to support it, and also because a lot of what people are seeing in the public discourse doesn't seem to support it. Some people feel that there still are some people who it applies to, but others now doubt that it is a phenomena at all. They just don't think that's the real factual explanation for what's going on.

I think a lot of people have moved from thinking the medicalized explanation was probably, to disbelieving it. So that's reflected in how people are posting and what they think should happen.

Fantastic summary. Yes, this is exactly what has happened.

And this shifting of definitions and lack of public awareness of what “trans” is being used to mean in practice combines with the “no debate” “I will not engage with people who doubt my existence” “trans people’s existence is not a matter for debate” position demanded by gender supremacist organisations, activists and commentators to create an environment where

(a) when a gender-first demand is made, the basis on which that demand appears to be justified can slide around between whichever concept of “transness” best supports their case even though if you pay enough attention you realise that the various statements and TRA demands imply mutually incompatible characteristics of “transness” even when coming from the same source

and (b) any possibility of tempering, compromise or finding other equally effective solutions is shut down because no one is allowed to define transness but we need a consistent, objective and material definition (doesn’t have to be a deep scientific explanation, just a working definition based on the common attributes and differences to other similar groups would be fine) so that potential solutions coming from groups other than TRAs can be assessed.

That leads to an imbalance of social and political power where TRAs empowered to assess and dismiss the impact of their demands on other social groups but the same is not true in reverse.

I suspect I may be one of the more conciliatory/compromising posters. However, it’s a mistake to think I am compromising simply to #bekind. (Although, of course, if we can #bekind and accommodate a wonderful variety of human gender expression without compromising the rights, safety and social and political autonomy of female people I am all for it!)

I am pragmatic. If I rally under any hashtag it is #beEffective.

Getting in arguments about who is or is not a woman is pointless IMO, because language changes and social definitions change. And it’s allowing the TRAs to control the field on which the battle is fought. They have made believing TWAW such a badge of progressive self image, and to consider that may not be true such a badge of transphobic hate, that many people who might otherwise engage and think critically just can’t get past it.

Basically, the argument about whether TWAW or not is the one that TRAs want to have because it’s the one they can frame with emotional arguments like “denying existence”, “a civil rights issue just like [x]” (where [x] is totally unrelated of course), “reducing women to biology”.

So I think it’s far more effective to have the conversation TRAs don’t want to have, which is the practical consequences of redefining (or if you prefer, correctly recognising) Woman as a mixed sex group. It’s more effective and more powerful because it gets away from who is morally right or wrong and focuses on how this change impacts female people. Because regardless of whether or not “Woman” should have meant exclusively female it undeniably did, and therefore by the TRAs own logic, everything we think of as “women’s” (sports, spaces, rights, opportunities, groups etc) was never in fact “Women’s” at all, it was always Females’. There’s absolutely no logic to to the TRA position that this stuff should be made accessible to TW because it’s only “women’s” by virtue of a definition they reject!

Taking this route forces the light back on to the flaws and inconsistencies in the ideology itself by (intellectually, not in practice) giving them what they want, seeing what that leads to and challenging them to solve the problems it creates, not with the intention of “ha, gotcha, it doesn’t work” but from a position of “ok, if this is the right thing to do, this is what it means in practice so how do we make it work?”

You might think “it’s not our job to help them solve their problems” and that is true. But I think we want to be part of solving the problems to make sure our voices are heard, and to prevent valid practical solutions being sidelined because they don’t fit the gender supremacist’s social agenda.

Also, there’s the possibility that when challenged to get away from slogans and work out how it works in the real world they come up with some solutions that do work and do not disadvantage female people! And genuinely, that will be ok by me. As I said earlier I’m not wedded to any specific language or structures as long as female people - the group formerly known as women - come out of it with what they need.

In case it’s not clear, none of this is done with the expectation of winning hardcore TRA hearts and minds, but to make sure the wider public and political estate are seeing the shallowness, inconsistency and unfairness of implementing gender-first demands in practice instead of being distracted by the emotional appeal of the simplistic (and wrong) narrative of goodies and baddies that TRAs promote.

Blibby, thank you, that's really helpful.

@Blibbyblobby

I suspect I may be one of the more conciliatory/compromising posters. However, it’s a mistake to think I am compromising simply to #bekind. (Although, of course, if we can #bekind and accommodate a wonderful variety of human gender expression without compromising the rights, safety and social and political autonomy of female people I am all for it!)

I am pragmatic. If I rally under any hashtag it is #beEffective.

Getting in arguments about who is or is not a woman is pointless IMO, because language changes and social definitions change. And it’s allowing the TRAs to control the field on which the battle is fought. They have made believing TWAW such a badge of progressive self image, and to consider that may not be true such a badge of transphobic hate, that many people who might otherwise engage and think critically just can’t get past it.

Basically, the argument about whether TWAW or not is the one that TRAs want to have because it’s the one they can frame with emotional arguments like “denying existence”, “a civil rights issue just like [x]” (where [x] is totally unrelated of course), “reducing women to biology”.

So I think it’s far more effective to have the conversation TRAs don’t want to have, which is the practical consequences of redefining (or if you prefer, correctly recognising) Woman as a mixed sex group. It’s more effective and more powerful because it gets away from who is morally right or wrong and focuses on how this change impacts female people. Because regardless of whether or not “Woman” should have meant exclusively female it undeniably did, and therefore by the TRAs own logic, everything we think of as “women’s” (sports, spaces, rights, opportunities, groups etc) was never in fact “Women’s” at all, it was always Females’. There’s absolutely no logic to to the TRA position that this stuff should be made accessible to TW because it’s only “women’s” by virtue of a definition they reject!

Taking this route forces the light back on to the flaws and inconsistencies in the ideology itself by (intellectually, not in practice) giving them what they want, seeing what that leads to and challenging them to solve the problems it creates, not with the intention of “ha, gotcha, it doesn’t work” but from a position of “ok, if this is the right thing to do, this is what it means in practice so how do we make it work?”

You might think “it’s not our job to help them solve their problems” and that is true. But I think we want to be part of solving the problems to make sure our voices are heard, and to prevent valid practical solutions being sidelined because they don’t fit the gender supremacist’s social agenda.

Also, there’s the possibility that when challenged to get away from slogans and work out how it works in the real world they come up with some solutions that do work and do not disadvantage female people! And genuinely, that will be ok by me. As I said earlier I’m not wedded to any specific language or structures as long as female people - the group formerly known as women - come out of it with what they need.

In case it’s not clear, none of this is done with the expectation of winning hardcore TRA hearts and minds, but to make sure the wider public and political estate are seeing the shallowness, inconsistency and unfairness of implementing gender-first demands in practice instead of being distracted by the emotional appeal of the simplistic (and wrong) narrative of goodies and baddies that TRAs promote.

I think the issue is not that they don't realise that making woman mixed sex disadvantages people with vaginas.

They don't they care that it impacts people with vaginas.

They won't help protect people with vaginas.

Only the people that see an issue can help solve it.

The TRA are not our allies. They perceive people with vaginas as gatekeepers of womanhood and they resent any and all aspects of being female that are denied to trans women.

Whilst I understand your consolatory approach I don't believe it will work because it still implies a difference between vagina havers and those that covet womanhood.

@GoldenBlue

Hence my last paragraph “ In case it’s not clear, none of this is done with the expectation of winning hardcore TRA hearts and minds, but to make sure the wider public and political estate are seeing the shallowness, inconsistency and unfairness of implementing gender-first demands in practice instead of being distracted by the emotional appeal of the simplistic (and wrong) narrative of goodies and baddies that TRAs promote.”

@Iliketherainbest

Relative newbie on the Board. Definitely seen something here which could be new. Noticed it after the Board was split. Emergence of occasional posts which seem to try to 'position' this place in a particular way. Imply or claim posters think or believe certain things which I've not see much evidence of. As if saying it makes it real. Not talking about original OP here. But these type of posts have an emotive and manipulative feel about them. And feel disingenuous. Trolling feels too simple a word for this. But something is definitely off.

There's just been a thread like that deleted for trolling. It was a laughably transparent attempt to gather screenshots of 'transphobia' but it was implying a mindset that just isn't present here. Put simply, the posters on here don't believe that a small child will be 'brainwashed' while on a playdate and the assumption that the posters would jump upon it, frothing at the mouth, shows a mind-set which is not here for discussion and reflection, it's here to push an agenda.

Some are more subtle. That one was ridiculously transparent.

For every Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel there is a Kellie-Jay and Julia Long.

Good. Both types are needed.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

For every Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel there is a Kellie-Jay and Julia Long.

Good. Both types are needed.

Yeah we have to disagree there.

Do you remember that time jj reproached all us mummies for the tone on the fruit forum, instead of going there to take it up with them?

There was also the time when an angry TRA accused women on a thread here, including me, of being personally responsible for the Antifa v Proud Boys violence outside Wi Spa.

Yeah we have to disagree there.

No problem 🤷‍♀️

Kelli-Jay does not believe kids should be in nursery while women work. She is a traditional conservative and her views around transgender spring out of that mindset.

@julieca

Kelli-Jay does not believe kids should be in nursery while women work. She is a traditional conservative and her views around transgender spring out of that mindset.

Women are allowed to have differing opinions from each other. It doesn’t take away from the issues we agree on.

@Blibbyblobby that's a good way of explaining things.

And your #BeEffective has now put this song in my head 🤣

I think peoples underlying values do matter. There are lots of conservative Christians who don't think you can change sex. I don't see them as my ally.

She is a traditional conservative and her views around transgender spring out of that mindset.

To some extent she got involved in this when she got in trouble for standing up for women within the Labour party...

All women deserve sex based rights. It begins and ends there for me.

@TaliaB1

I wonder if the TRA bullies ever stopped consider that maybe they are culturally insensitive at best, and RACIST at worst, by suggesting Muslim women must put up with penises in their face in women's spaces? In a competition between Woke vs Woke, which would win out in their brainwashed minds? The Meninist TRAs 'right' to have penis-bodied people in women's spaces? Or the rights of a Hijabi Muslim woman - who feels she can remove Hijab in a woman's only space?

This is a question I would like TRAs to answer. In their minds, which one has 'right of way'? Which one has right of way in a woman's space?

I'm not a TRA but quite honestly, that's an easy one for them to answer - because of their TWAW mantra.

They don't give a shiny shit about anyone else's rights or religion - because they're determined to redefine the female sex to include penis-having bodies.

So Muslim objections to having penis-holders in their women only groups would become transphobic.

Currently under ACTUAL law, not the way Stonewall would like it to be, Religious belief IS a protected characteristic and so religious people's rights, like the one you've discussed, should be upheld. But then so is sex a protected characteristic, and women's rights to have sex-segregated spaces should ALSO be upheld - and look what a fucking barnfire they've made of that.

So I'm sorry to say that, unless this is sorted out, then the TRAs will not uphold Muslim women's needs to be in a sex-segregated space, because they don't accept that TW are actually men/male.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Do you remember that time jj reproached all us mummies for the tone on the fruit forum, instead of going there to take it up with them?

There was also the time when an angry TRA accused women on a thread here, including me, of being personally responsible for the Antifa v Proud Boys violence outside Wi Spa.

Blimey. I had no idea you were that powerful, Eresh.

I think peoples underlying values do matter. There are lots of conservative Christians who don't think you can change sex. I don't see them as my ally.

Because they are Christians? Conservatives? Or before they believe in biological reality?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Do you remember that time jj reproached all us mummies for the tone on the fruit forum, instead of going there to take it up with them?

There was also the time when an angry TRA accused women on a thread here, including me, of being personally responsible for the Antifa v Proud Boys violence outside Wi Spa.

Were you supposed to be jetting over to LA to organise it?

I find it quite sad that all of the feminist anthems of the past that seemed to be so groundbreaking at the time are still, still

still

so bloody relevant. Aren't they, Helen?

I like this one when dealing with emotional blackmail and manipulative appeals to female socialisation, @ArabellaScott

m.youtube.com/watch?v=r26krlXFmOI

We have also been accused of being the high school bullies of someone who I believe was at school before I was even born.

Good choice, Eresh. Wendy has it.

TimOTey - so why isnt it possible to agree on the one point of sex having a basis in biology but disagree about conservative Christian ideology? I have friends where we may disagree on one issue but agree on lots of others. I dont want to hang out with people who have an entirely duplicate mindset to my own. Its true I dont know right wing conservative Christians but I do know some Christians, homeopathy believers, Vegans etc and dont agree with everything they say but stay friends.