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!

@purpleboy

I suppose I can understand some of what op is saying. I am not on Twitter really anymore but I was for a while and I definitely saw a fair few women who were encouraging each other to "report" some TRAS to their bosses, it was often regarding what that person had said in a reply tweet, this felt to me very similar to what the TRAs do to women and in some cases possibly justified but in others not so much.

I have without doubt seem a fair few (GC) women being incredibly rude/nasty/unpleasant to trans people, not just factual ie TW are men, but talking about them being a plastic Barbie, getting personal about their appearance, 5 o'clock shadow. I don't see any need to get so personal.

So I can see the insults etc.. on both sides, but when you look at both sides they aren't really comparable as one is being rude, the other is threatening death and rape threats.

I do have an issue with only having toilets by biological sex because there are TM that look male and in some cases (although rarer) there are TW who could pass as female. Whilst the view when presented with the question of TM in women's toilet's is usually answered with "well they're female so they are welcome" in reality if I came face to face with some TM I would feel very uncomfortable because to me they look male. Third spaces is the only answer and we know how that suggestion has gone down, so if third spaces won't be accepted what's the answer?

The other thing that I struggle with is what do people here really think will happen in the end?
Considering trans people are in fact using the spaces of the opposite sex, and most of us here want TW out of ours, is it realistic to think we will succeed? We can argue for it all we like, and I think we absolutely have the argument for it to happen, more places across the world are bringing in self id, is it realistic to think we can ever get our rights back?

You say: 'I do have an issue with only having toilets by biological sex because there are TM that look male and in some cases (although rarer) there are TW who could pass as female.'

We have managed this situation for as long as there have been toilets to share. Your point is not a reason to change things and deny safe places to women.

Perhaps I should have been clearer Fleur

I meant I am not willing to engage without calling things out for what they are. Whether that's the issues with your fourth spaces 'solution' or op claiming people shouldn't share pictures of men who muscle in on women's sports.

No, I'm not going to silence myself because others cannot form a coherent argument, sorry that's what you took from my post. Glad to clarify.

@MyLittlePhonyPony

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.

My actual words. I said I would call it out.

MyLittlePhonyPony I don't think anyone should be silenced, sorry if that's what you understood and thank you for clarifying.

I strongly believe that disagreements can be had whilst maintaining respect and I don't feel this has been the case with the OP (or myself to a much lesser extent) on this thread.

Disagreements are fantastic, they teach us, but patronisation and mocking don't need to be included in that, it shuts down any hope for discussion as people become (understandably) defensive. Just my two cents.

Also your words: Still, it's nice you are up with the lingo despite being so uniformed.

To me, that comes off as patronising/disrespectful and doesn't actually add anything to the conversation, I'd take that as a dig. That's what I was referring to.

@Artichokeleaves

I don't agree that only one "side" should "get their way" and fuck the rest, I think it's a far too complex issue for there to only be one solution and it's not right that only one side ends up getting everything they want and the other to be deeply unhappy about it or feel unsafe.

Here here. Inclusion should be something applying to everyone. (Even the females). Equality and access should be a value universally applied to everyone. Diversity means a range of varied services so that there is something that meets everyone's needs.

However you will find that while the pov of women's rights on this board and in grass roots orgs is:

• We need answers that work for everyone

and

• the answer is a range of diverse spaces so that there is something for everyone

The response to this from the political TQ+ lobby is absolute rage.

• there cannot be a range of services with something for everyone: instead male people must have full access to everything and if this means excluding females and preventing their inclusion, access and needs being met, it's their fault and serves them right.

Example: the current Brighton Rape Crisis situation, directly affecting a MNetter in need of their services. Three separate choices exist for TW users: men only, LBTQ+ and the mixed sex women's group. Female users have only one option: the mixed sex women's group. No group can exist for females who need a single sex service to be able to access the service at all: not even on a different site. The mere existence of this is too offensive and upsetting to male people.

• there cannot be anywhere a service that differentiates between female and male people as this is too offensive to male people

• the only possible solution is that all females surrender their sex based rights, language, consent, privacy, dignity, autonomy, visibility in law, equality of access, and if need be just go without services, resources, health care etc but shut up about it.

• police and law should be weaponised to silence females who do not accept their subordinate status in law to male people and this tacit normalisation creeping into law of their purpose as resources for male people, which creates a two tier hierarchy of humans while at the same time maintaining a fiction that sex is an optional choice without real meaning.

I see one of these positions as morally ok and the other as morally abhorrent.

Thats because female boundaries are being used for male validation, trans women are women, if you treat women differently and give them validation that their need and rights are different then you immediately invalidate the mantra that trans women are women and are then thus deemed anti trans because you are claiming they are not women.

and round and round we go.

@purpleboy I’m very active on GC Twitter and the only time I have seen women comment on a TW’s appearance is when they make ridiculous comments like

• trans women are more more attractive than any cis woman (I am using their terminology - I despise the word cis)
• TW saying that women’s boyfriends/husbands would cheat on them with a TW in a heartbeat
• when TW are wearing extremely revealing clothes highlighting their penises, tilting their heads and proclaiming how much like a woman they look

And so on and so forth

if you treat women differently and give them validation that their need and rights are different then you immediately invalidate the mantra that trans women are women and are then thus deemed anti trans because you are claiming they are not women.

Excellent point.

Hence why women and society in general are being forced to the discourtesy of saying clearly, TWATW. NW.

@Fleurtjeblau

Also your words: Still, it's nice you are up with the lingo despite being so uniformed.

To me, that comes off as patronising/disrespectful and doesn't actually add anything to the conversation, I'd take that as a dig. That's what I was referring to.

It was actually my way of expressing my disbelief that op claims to be ignorant and 'want to learn' but not only ignores facts and posts that might help the learning process, also seems to have a surprising amount of niche vocabulary for one so informed.

So a snide way of expressing my disbelief. I'm not sure if it is better to call op a liar though?

I think op is either lying or wilfully ignorant.

When you engage with the posts beyond policing the tone I'll be able to make an assessment about that too.

LittlePhonyPony This isn't me being snippy, but I don't understand why you're questioning if OP is a liar. I'm not fully "in" the debate either, I have some knowledge of everything that's going on, but I don't follow it as much as others and have referred to myself as a "newbie", yet I also know those terms.

I think, in general, if someone actively says that they don't know everything, they're new to it, still learning etc then that's exactly the case, they're not a liar.

Yes, I think OP should've engaged more with some of the informative posts, but the fact that they didn't doesn't lead me to jump to them being a liar.

Also, I have engaged. You didn't agree, which is absolutely fine, but I have engaged.

I don't understand why you're questioning if OP is a liar.

FWR gets many, many, pretend posters pretending that they don't understand the issue and when questioned, seem to know all about it - they are just after screenshots for twitter.

Not saying this OP is doing that, but many, many do.

Correct me if I'm wrong Fleur but the only true engagement I have seen from you is when you offered up fourth spaces.

But no engagement with the limitations that that points out.

However, I could we wrong as I don't have a premium account so can't review all your posts.

Happy to be pointed back to where you would like to begin engaging again.

@AlisonDonut

I don't understand why you're questioning if OP is a liar.

FWR gets many, many, pretend posters pretending that they don't understand the issue and when questioned, seem to know all about it - they are just after screenshots for twitter.

Not saying this OP is doing that, but many, many do.

Yes, unfortunately, I know all about that. It doesn't look like that's the case here, but appreciate others may think differently.

but appreciate others may think differently.
Hmm.

MyLittlePhony You're correct that that's where I engaged, but I did point out that I didn't feel I was in a position to engage further as my knowledge was limited (I engaged because I was asked directly about my opinion) and didn't want to, for lack of a better term, spout crap.

I still believe that I lack the knowledge to engage with the limitations that my proposal entails - I was simply stating my opinion, as I was asked to.

I cannot imagine my first post on the cat lover boards implying that I didn’t want to be seen as a crazy cat lady* and then complaining bitterly that my post was not received well.

(*using this an analogy only)

It's a good analogy.

Right, but after seeing the various facts that people had posted someone engaged would have acknowledged those facts or at least said it was interesting and that you'd like more links to do some research. Or asked some questions.

Being absolutely fair here you're selectively engaging and , regardless of motivation, it doesn't add much to discussion does it?

I agree. People were happy to engage about your idea, Fleur. You can agree or disagree as you see fit. You don't need any special level of knowledge.

To me "it's all too complicated" is a massive cop out.

"it's complicated" is short hand for "deep down I think I'll end up agreeing with what GC posters say but it would make life very difficult if I admit that to myself" for many.

When I started posting on this thread, I was away from my computer, in a car on my way to several different meetings throughout the day. I wasn't in a position to engage in a very serious debate in which I could provide a bunch of links or drop what I was doing to read the links posted, etc.

Nor did I say "it's far too complicated for me". I know my own limitations and know that I do not have the time to dedicate to learning everything possible about this subject and leading the way or joining in robust debates. I'm still learning, I'm on the sidelines, engaging every now and then and also, yes, speaking up if I feel an OP is being unfairly treated by other posters on the thread - if you're saying I'm not allowed to participate on threads because of this, then please show me where that's a rule on MN.

No one said you weren't allowed to participate. It's just that the way you're participating isn't as helpful to discussion as you think and isn't appreciated whilst done by simultaneously policing the tone of others.
Although I suppose it gives people the opportunity to explore the inherent issues in your solutions, so there's that.

Mumsnet is pretty universal. Say something half-baked on aibu and you'll realise how gently you and the op have been treated.

I don't really understand all this stuff about the need for compromise. Why?

The way I see it is: a group of men want something from us. We don't want to give it to them. And why should we? They have decided they don't want to be men any more. Fine - why is that our problem?