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!

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

In terms of changing rooms etc we need to make sure everyone is happy and feels comfortable

I think you need to understand that this is not possible. Male supremacists/ TRA want men to have unfettered access to women's spaces as a result of their identity. Women don't think there is ever a reason why men should be in women's spaces. There is no middle ground here. Either we have women's spaces or we have mixed spaces.

Accepting that women are not being 'mean' for saying that 'we want to keep female spaces' may also be helpful. Accepting that saying this more assertively after you've been shouted at, demeaned and threatened does not make you a 'mean girl' is probably also helpful.

This is a zero sum game I'm afraid just as many issues of trying to tackle entrenched privilege are.

It is like the OP has never heard of 'Risk Assessments'.

I understand what you're trying to get across, OP.

OP didnt actually call anyone here a "mean girl" who is bullying trans people, they simply stated that there are mean girls who bully trans people, some posters here have simply taken that to mean themselves.

Also while I dont believe OP is being attacked, this discussion is immediately met with some patronising responses that women everywhere are so unfortunately used to, that we all hate and that usually come from men. I find them quite misplaced and unnecessary.

I think that this is the wrong place for this discussion, I'm sure there are other more "neutral" places online where you'd encounter like-minded people and could discuss this more extensively without any defensiveness (that isn't me saying you shouldn't be here in the slightest) and the conversation could flow more easily.

I think that this is the wrong place for this discussion

It's the right place for the discussion, but OP needs to articulate what she's actually trying to discuss. It's clear OP is used to twitter where you can just fling anything out then complain that your feelings are hurt.

Here we try and be a bit more analytical.
OP should also bear in mind the history of this board and how often we get people posting goady OPs for screen shots. When you've seen that happen hundreds of times you might be able to understand why people are a little sarcastic about poorly worded OPs.

OP has been asked to set out what they think is wrong/right about the GC position - I'd be interested to hear. They alluded to some things in the OP but it wasn't too clear e.g. what 'throwing trans people to the wolves' means - from later posts I assume they mean sports bodies are trying to be inclusive to the point of obvious unfairness and that means the general public see trans people as demanding unfairness. But OP hasn't really gotten into it in any great detail.

Prelatechuckles I assume that the OP was also looking for similar points of view and having a discussion based on those shared views highlighted in the OP and as the MN Feminist Board is very GC, it's probably not the place to find those similar views.

I do hope the OP comes back and expands on their thoughts because I do also find myself much more centred in this discussion rather than on either side, I think a really interesting debate could be had. Also, very difficult to be as eloquent and clear as the majority of posters on this board, I could never express myself as well as some posters do, so it can automatically come across as not making sense.

I also understand why posters are sceptical because of the idiots screenshotting and then posting to twitter, but it does have the unfortunate consequence of shutting down any conversation that isn't in agreement with the general opinion of the FWR board as well as discouraging any future posters who don't share the opinion.

I agree to some extent, I think it needs to be a middle ground between OPs taking the time to realise this and making sure their OPs aren't a ticklist of goady points, and some regulars to take things at face value. The thing is, that's what trolls (actual trolls, not saying OP is) rely on, so often ignoring and scrolling on is the best established technique.

I've already posted that I consider myself to be in the 'middle ground' of the debate, and I'm a regular poster, so that's why it's frustrating that the OP didn't really address their own point.

I do get that posting to vent is a thing though!

Well this is where it would be useful for Mumsnet to allow discussion of sex and gender on a more general board like aibu...

But I can't see the conversation being very useful. If you bar GC or tra voices it basically becomes a lot of people agreeing they should be nice, totally uniformed and impractical. Just a giant competitive virtue signalling exercise really.

Here you go OP...have a think about this one.

Yesterday an MP came out as 'trans'.

Go have a little look at him.

Are you ok with him using female toilets and changing room? Where teenage and younger girls can be? And sometimes in states of undress.

Now have a look into his history. What do you see?

Do you still think going into changing rooms and toilets where young girls can be in states of undress, knowing that his business was supplying girls to men to be raped? Do you wonder if he sometimes 'casting couch' ed those girls? Still ok in female toilets and changing rooms? Not a risk now he has said the magic 'trans' word?

Because it is only a word. And it seems to have grown ups losing their minds.

I think there have been too many trolls now, so genuine OPs like this one appears to be (imo) are immediately patronised and dismissed by some posters so it does appear that dialogues that arent fully in line with the general GC opinion arent welcome here. A clearer OP of their thoughts and points of discussion would be better, of course, and may encourage a better response.

I dont think that the discussion would become a competitive virtue signalling exercise at all. I've seen plenty of "middle ground" conversations online that have been fantastic and respectful and also quite educational for someone like me, I definitely think theres a place for it, but as I said, I dont think it can happen in a place like the FWR board, although I would love it to!

I felt the OP was goady. A little self awareness wouldn't go amiss, when you want a reasoned conversation.

AlisonDonut, with respect and not goady at all, I dont think I've seen OP say that anyone who says they're trans should be allowed in single sex spaces? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. I believe they said that they see the issue and therefore believe that more single changing rooms should be provided?

It's also quite striking that she felt she could "vent" here and imply that "terfs" (a misogynistic slur TRAs have used about many of us) are wrong, I doubt she'd feel so able to "vent" in a TRA space.

I'm curious Fleur what does a middle ground look like to you?

I'm not particularly a fwr regular although I do dabble so you can explain without 'fear'.

but as I said, I dont think it can happen in a place like the FWR board, although I would love it to!

Why not just try starting one? Just bear in mind everyone will go on what your OP says, so be careful to set out what is is you actually think and want to find out. Generally, saying "GCs think xyz" isn't that helpful - specify a position, because different people who consider themselves GC can think different things....

believe that more single changing rooms should be provided?

Not really a solution in the actual physical world we've built.

And whilst for example, I think some single changing rooms are necessary for those that want them, I think if we went to a completely private society that would bring it's own ills.

So a world with no communal changing rooms would mean girls and women were unlikely to see the range of normal female bodies. They'd only be exposed to the beauty ideals shown in the media. I think that wou have negative effects, similar to the influx of unattainable bodies on Instagram etc has had on people's psyches.

And in teaching group changing is one area where safeguarding issues are spotted.

Actually, if you spend enough time on this board reading, you will see there are plenty of different views expressed.

Often though, there are posts that are there simply to shame women for trying to have the conversation. I have read the OP a couple of times and tbf, it does follow that theme.

This is not a ‘hive mind’. There are some people who are very much about seeking a way to compromise, and there are some people who are of the opinion their are none to be found. There are prominent trans activists who are extreme in their views who post here.

I find the rhetoric that this is probably an extreme view forum board may be more stemming from not having confidence in your argument than the reality. And if you are not confident enough to discuss your point of view maybe look at why that is so. Is it you not understanding, or the fact that it doesn’t make sense in the first place.

And if you (general you) cannot start a thread without the implication that you don’t want to be seen as a ‘terf’ on a feminism board, you (general you) need to understand why you made that statement and how that underpins your position. ie. Are you reacting to not wanting to be seen as ‘that sort of woman’ or do you genuinely not understand the position or understand the position but not agree with it.

Recently, I was on a thread where an OP, amongst the huge number of posts doubling down on how hateful women are for wanting single sex spaces, slipped in a statement that indicated they also had reservations about penises in female toilets. But that poster ended up simply displaying how much they hated women who were saying no. They used almost every activist trope in the book and all emotionally manipulative without any evidential substance. But that poster also had reservations but they simply were entrenched in being kind to trans people trope and directly hate at any person they felt didn’t centre the people they wanted centred. (no one picked them up for that statement as the thread was very fast moving). Another was from a transitioned person who also had a very poor grasp of what many feminists believe and are actively campaigning for. Thankfully they engaged and we all listened and learned.

My point is, often people also arrive with a twitter informed view and throw out the slurs because of that twitter informed view. Often their view of what many feminists believe and are fighting for is wrong. Because extreme trans activists are often unable to state what many feminists believe but hate feminists anyway.

This is the board to have those discussions. They are being had very regularly.

Yawn, more thinly-disguised trans lobbying trying to undermine the pro-woman community on Mumsnet.

‘Mean girls’ eh? Get lost, misogynist.

@Fleurtjeblau

AlisonDonut, with respect and not goady at all, I dont think I've seen OP say that anyone who says they're trans should be allowed in single sex spaces? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. I believe they said that they see the issue and therefore believe that more single changing rooms should be provided?

I thought the OP wanted everyone to be happy in their choice of changing rooms? So if the man that ran a 'sugar daddy' website offering up girls to men to be raped feels happy in the ladies, then the OP is well up for that right? If he says he is trans then he is trans?

OP didnt actually call anyone here a "mean girl" who is bullying trans people, they simply stated that there are mean girls who bully trans people, some posters here have simply taken that to mean themselves.

I think it goes deeper than that posters have taken it to mean themselves. The whole idea of “mean girls” is a highly negative sexist trope. OP also very clearly censured one side for not being polite, while wholly ignoring the extensive rape and death threats that many feminists have had thrown at them, alongside losing jobs and contracts.

Later in mentioning sports, OP chose to empathise with the men invading women’s sports (again presumably because “mean girlz” are treating them badly) rather than the women whose changing rooms have been invaded, and whose medals and places have been stolen. OP did then refer to the obvious fact that those men have an obvious physical advantage,, and thus should be excluded, but that didn’t seem to be because of the damage to women. It seemed to be more about protecting those men from the awful “girlz”. Or perhaps, more cynically, it’s because the sports arena is too perfect a demonstration of why pretending men are women doesn’t work and thus OP can see that it will be the first stage of their undoing, if they continue to insist.

There wasn’t a single comment that expressed genuine empathy towards women, or consideration that they might have a point. It was framed to look less extreme than some arguments, but really, to me, there was nothing “middle ground” about it.

@Helleofabore

Actually, if you spend enough time on this board reading, you will see there are plenty of different views expressed.

Often though, there are posts that are there simply to shame women for trying to have the conversation. I have read the OP a couple of times and tbf, it does follow that theme.

This is not a ‘hive mind’. There are some people who are very much about seeking a way to compromise, and there are some people who are of the opinion their are none to be found. There are prominent trans activists who are extreme in their views who post here.

I find the rhetoric that this is probably an extreme view forum board may be more stemming from not having confidence in your argument than the reality. And if you are not confident enough to discuss your point of view maybe look at why that is so. Is it you not understanding, or the fact that it doesn’t make sense in the first place.

And if you (general you) cannot start a thread without the implication that you don’t want to be seen as a ‘terf’ on a feminism board, you (general you) need to understand why you made that statement and how that underpins your position. ie. Are you reacting to not wanting to be seen as ‘that sort of woman’ or do you genuinely not understand the position or understand the position but not agree with it.

Recently, I was on a thread where an OP, amongst the huge number of posts doubling down on how hateful women are for wanting single sex spaces, slipped in a statement that indicated they also had reservations about penises in female toilets. But that poster ended up simply displaying how much they hated women who were saying no. They used almost every activist trope in the book and all emotionally manipulative without any evidential substance. But that poster also had reservations but they simply were entrenched in being kind to trans people trope and directly hate at any person they felt didn’t centre the people they wanted centred. (no one picked them up for that statement as the thread was very fast moving). Another was from a transitioned person who also had a very poor grasp of what many feminists believe and are actively campaigning for. Thankfully they engaged and we all listened and learned.

My point is, often people also arrive with a twitter informed view and throw out the slurs because of that twitter informed view. Often their view of what many feminists believe and are fighting for is wrong. Because extreme trans activists are often unable to state what many feminists believe but hate feminists anyway.

This is the board to have those discussions. They are being had very regularly.

Agree with all of this. I've seen countless threads over the years by OPs imploring a 'middle ground' which then turns out to be exactly what most FWRers already believe. There is a lot of misconception about who believes what.

OP, I think the trouble is that you are caught between GC people who are talking about things at a population level and the TRA arguments that focus on individual people. TRA arguments do not want to talk populations, as then they would have to concede that either there are limitations to the definition or trans or that they are saying anyone can just claim the category at any time.

Think about prisons, for example, we do not want to discuss individual transwomen, we want to discuss male and female estates. We want to protect the female estate. If transwomen are vulnerable in the male estate, that is a male problem to solve. There are a number of vulnerable male groups - should women's' spaces be open to gay men, religious men, good looking young boys...etc. I'm sure you could find a vulnerable member of each category to parade around and try to emotionally argue that women should just take him in, it will make him feel better and be safer.... we cannot build safe laws on this premise.

I think the middle ground is third spaces where necessary. The argument that "separate is not equal," is borne from the American racial segregation, but there are plenty of example where separate but equal works perfectly well. We didn't welcome different religions to our predominantly Christian country by making the church share it's space, remove all mentions of Jesus and call themselves cis-religious. Instead we said that religions have the right to be respected, to have their own places of worship, to have their own needs met on an equal footing with other beliefs.

If we need to legislate for genders outside male/man and female/woman then we need to make new laws, not fudge old ones - especially ones for which the basis in law is still applicable, such as women's rights.

Personally, I think the whole concept of a middle ground is flawed and reveals someone hasn't thought too deeply about it.

Most of us arrive at fwr advocating for a middle ground. For example, the belief that transwomen who have had the op can access women's safe spaces.

But most of us then realise that any 'middle ground' we offer up our concessions made to the detriment of other females. We didn't consider for example, that just because we are fine with mixed sex changing rooms, doesn't mean a body conscious teen, a religious woman or a rape victim are.

I see the middle ground these days as the rallying cry of someone who has not thought very much beyond their own experience.

However, the true middle ground I would like to see is:

Any discrimination in employment tackled (already in law)
Proportional tailored services provided
Medical needs properly investigated and all routes and outcomes explored

This is a middle ground. One readily dismissed though.

There wasn’t a single comment that expressed genuine empathy towards women, or consideration that they might have a point. It was framed to look less extreme than some arguments, but really, to me, there was nothing “middle ground” about it.

This is how I read it too. And when Alison pointed out the vile abuse and threats that GC feminists get from trans activists OP again shoehorned in the woes of MTF trans people and made a bizarre statement that they "play second fiddle" in the same way women do. To whom?

Mylittlephonypony Well I don't know what a middle ground would be, I think that's why these discussions need to take place with more regularity in general. 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. That's definitely wrong imo. I admit to not knowing much at all about sports and testosterone/estrogen levels etc but my stance is that if performance enhancing drugs are banned, then hormones that essentially make you stronger should be treated in the same vein and biological men shouldn't be competing against biological women. My thoughts on toilet use are a bit more complex than that. Overall, I think discussion is fantastic and is the way forward, in a space with mutual respect, with no patronising comments or personal attacks. But I am by far not educated enough to debate anything like this at this point, hence why I dont start threads, I'm in a "read and learn" position currently.

Some of these demands that TRAs make are a zero sum game, though, however difficult that may be. How do you protect the rights of women to a female only space when they need one, and also validate males who want to be in that female only space because denying them access is acknowledging that they are not women?