Gender argument - caught in the middle

[Baggingarea]

I feel totally caught in the middle in this brave new world of gender ID and I guess I’m just looking for somewhere to vent without getting piled on.

I just think the argument has become so unbelievably divided that there’s no room for mediation any more.

On the one hand I see a mean girls club basically bullying trans women online and selectively finding examples of criminals etc to prove a point.

On the other I think the sports industry / politicians are so scared to put a foot wrong they are throwing trans women to the wolves. Like surely there should be some debate and policy making going on. You can’t have trans women dominating womens sports as they have an unfair advantage. Professional bodies should be having serious conversations about this.

In terms of changing rooms etc we need to make sure everyone is happy and feels comfortable. Personally I hate changing in front of others regardless of their gender at birth - why can’t we more provision for individual changing rooms for both men and women?

Like I get how women are so protective of their rights but it’s not like trans people haven’t faced discrimination and prejudice too.

I just hate how I can’t feel like I can’t say these things publicly without being branded a terf or a gender traitor. Stifling debate like this is not healthy!

Again, why would we want to do that? Why is it our job to entertain you on a rainy Thursday night? If you have nothing constructive to say, and you think that coming onto a forum discussing women’s rights and shouting at women for discussing said rights, is a fun thing to do, that says a lot more about you than it does about any of the grown ups discussing this matter.

@Cayeli

“Lol. Sex based pronouns used since language evolved are recent inventions now are they?

And by transphobes no less.”

Just like "sex-based rights", the phrase "sex-based pronouns" was invented in the recent years by yourselves.

All this time before now, they were called gendered pronouns.

Can you explain to me how men knew, without having to resort to any pronouns, which sexed bodies to deny the vote to?

Or which sexed bodies to impregnante to make babies?

How on earth did Shakespeare know which parts in his plays needed to be played by men because women were not allowed to perform?

It is a veritable mystery my liege.

It's also interesting that misgendering is 'deliberate and malicious' and yet you have used the term cis which many women consider i) a slur and ii) made up nonsense.

You've just come to associate feminine pronouns with certain body types and physical characteristics, but there's nothing inherently "factual" about that association.

Substitute "femininity" for "feminine pronouns" and you're repeating our own gender-critical arguments back to us.

Femininity (and masculinity) has nothing to do with biological sex. That's literally the point we are making. Glad you agree!

Just like "sex-based rights", the phrase "sex-based pronouns" was invented in the recent years by yourselves.

No. You have tried this one before. My uni degree in industrial relations in the 90s referred to sex-based rights. You are mistaken. Just as you were last time you tried that trope.

I mean you really are laying out the trope for us like a live demonstration of extreme activist tactics now.

@bagging clumsy wording for us to the debacle in sport so no, I personally don't give much leeway to clumsy wording anymore especially when the undertone is "be kind".

And when you say "respect someone's transition", is this respect nuanced enough and robust enough to accept the transition without affirming it?

I'm pretty sure you're the ones most adamant about women being physically inferior (and therefore in need of a completely separate category), whereas trans people are the ones arguing that sex shouldn't matter and that all people should be treated as equal.

This all sounds really familiar. I am experiencing significant deja vu with the wording in these posts.

Shall we post the studies that show a clear male advantage derived from a virulised puberty? They are the same ones that show that transitioned males still retain most of that advantage.

Not sure why you dispute that males have physical advantages. Even Joanne Harper agrees with that.

But very very few posters have ever used the term ‘inferior’ when discussing women’s physical reality. Certainly no one on this thread until you.

You are using that word as a manipulative tool.

And then in the same breath you move from physicality to the emotional need of equality.

This is the thread where Charlie posted earlier evidence of the use for ‘sex-based’ rights.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4517490-The-main-flaw-in-the-trans-rights-argument?pg=2

All this time before now, they were called gendered pronouns.

Yes it related to linguistic gender based on either sex or feminine or masculine grammar rules, not gender identity.

@Baggingarea just want to say 100% feel the same, just toxic

The OP has predictably disappeared. This person was not "caught in the middle" but was a shit-stirrer.

Yes and it's notable that all that arrive to throw mud lack the courage of convictions to form their own arguments and are busy with one liners and straw men.

@PrincessNutella

The OP has predictably disappeared. This person was not "caught in the middle" but was a shit-stirrer.

I don't think that's a fair assumption. I would've also disappeared after the "Shhh the grownups are talking" comment to be honest. I don't think OP is a shit-stirrer, just is of a different opinion.

just is of a different opinion

I am not sure they had opinions all that different though. Some not thought through to where that thought could and would go, but not all that different.

They seemed to almost desperately want them to be different though.

To me, it was almost like OP wanted reassurance that they were not like regular posters on this board.

I would've also disappeared after the "Shhh the grownups are talking" comment to be honest.

And I would have stuck around to understand why someone would have posted something like that in response to my post. Because I feel the need to understand whether that person has a genuine point.

I would've also disappeared after the "Shhh the grownups are talking" comment to be honest.
To be fair that comment wasn't directed at the OP it was for someone who showed up to claim that we lived in a gender paradise until nasty bullies invented sex based rights/pronouns etc a week past Tuesday.

I am not sure they had opinions all that different though. Some not thought through to where that thought could and would go, but not all that different.*

Well they certainly were different to their own views as they contradicted their own ideas. You can't enforce single sex spaces, have third spaces and have everyone where they are comfortable.

But oh, wait they suggested four spaces instead of three. How inspiring. Why didn't we think of that. The gender wars are solved!

No, Fleur suggested four spaces. I don’t think OP did. And I understand the theory as why Fleur suggested them.

Of course we know that third spaces are rejected. I suspect four spaces would be rejected too. But that doesn’t stop us discussing it theoretically.

And it doesn’t stop pp from still understanding and believing that female safe spaces are necessary and not transphobic to expect.

Ie. Having a shared starting point, different solutions is the nature of this board. Despite peoples attempts to paint it as a echo chamber and hive mind.

It also doesn’t stop people discussing and dissecting that idea. And anyone posing ideas here should expect them to be dissected and explained and challenged. That is what makes those ideas stronger and solid foundations.

It is doesn’t hold up to scrutiny here, it is not a strong idea in its current form.

My mistake, op sidestepped by implying they'd prefer single changing rooms etc for all. Then obviously ignored any real world practical and safeguarding scrutiny.

I have little patience for people who won't engage beyond dropping in their half baked idea as a solution.

Of course others can give them the benefit of the doubt and continue the discussion whilst they ignore all the points they like.

I don't consider that a proper discussion though and will call it out.

Sure. Sometimes the discussion is helpful and sometimes the discussion around the discussion is helpful.

Like pointing out the falsities that the clearly activist posters attempt is a lack of logic, dissection of tactics etc. Such as ‘sex-based rights’ was only made up recently. Complete bullshit.

Sometimes pulling apart someone’s genuinely proposed solution helps others to see whether it works or not. Even if we have seen it before. There are many new people reading along who haven’t.

No one needs to contribute to a discussion they don’t want to be in, and sometimes multiple discussions can happen on one thread at a time.

Fair enough if someone wants to call out a conversation they don't think is fully thought out, fair enough to question, but a lot of the response posts were pure assumptions and the main thing the OP ended up doing is clarifying rather than continuing the conversation. Also fair to disagree/pick apart points but some were just mocking OP (and myself) and it's not respectful. I dont know, I also would've stopped engaging due to the atmosphere.

If people make assumptions, it's best to set out your thoughts and position with more clarity.