Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

[Veryverycalmnow]

I am interested in some issues that I see being discussed on here (about transwomen mostly). I am supportive of some of what both 'sides' are saying. I am finding that everyone I hear or read discussing this is very definite and absolute about their opinion and I wondered if anyone is just fairly neutral or confused like me and trying to understand both sides of the argument? Is it ok to be on the fence with an issue like the gender- neutral bathroom debate, for example?

I promise I'm not trying to open a can of worms but I genuinely think it is so complicated that I can't decide who is right.

@Veryverycalmnow

Ask questions of GC people and see how compassionate and logical and reasonable their answers are.

It seems that you have already tried asking questions of trans activists and they have shut you down. Do not be surprised.

The only thing that you can really do is ask questions of trans activists like "obviously I support trans rights completely, but I'd love to understand the issues more so that I can refute TERFs when they are causing literal violence by referring to someone's biological sex - can you point me to some of the best essays, articles and videos that explain the position really well so that I can easily win any debate?"

If you find yourself utterly astonished at how there is NOTHING out there to support the TRA position I will not be surprised. You might then conclude that the GC position is probably more reasonable.

The crux of the issue is that "one side" refuses to debate issues and safeguarding effectively and thats all other "side" wants to do.

It's become an issue purely because of this.

Of course this board will say it's absolutely ok to be undecided (my opinion too.) we are keen to discuss all the ins and outs.

I was a little on the fence for a while though had clear ideas around children and biology as I teach young children and those with Sen/ autism and understand biological science. (So could see the safety issues) I could also understand the pressures of dysphoria as I suffered from extreme body dysmorphia around my face. I also read a lot about perception and aesthetics for my degree so understand a bit about psychology of perception. I had experience of religious extremism (Christian - 'friends' kept trying to convert me. I'm immune!)

We all come at this from different backgrounds and see things very differently. It actually takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make sense it lots of it as gender stereotypes are so ingrained in society and "neurotrash science" is very common in the media.

Obvious questions around this get called transphobic dog whistles no matter how genuine the question.

Which is really what 'transphobic dog whistle' means. In essence: "You are opening the floor to permit those to speak who may say things other than what I want you to hear, and I am afraid of you hearing them because its a threat to my control. Stop it at once."

I can't answer whether it's "OK" or not to think in the way that OP describes, but the available evidence shows that many people are (see below). An obvious example would appear to be that:

(a) In the UK there's near-universal opposition (outside of a few extremists) to TW in women's sport; but
(b) There's [surprisingly to me, I must admit] overall quite strong sympathy towards TW who have themselves been victims using women's refuges.

These sorts of discrepancies are only possible if at least some people are picking and choosing their issues.

A different type of nuance is that people are overall far more supportive of access for trans people who've had reassignment surgery than they are of trans people who haven't. Though this finding is of course slightly problematic since it's very hard to tell whether someone's already surgery or not just by looking at them; the discrepancy also points towards considerable public ignorance regarding just how few TW have undergone surgery.

You're on a journey, OP, that many of us have been on. Some of us travel it faster than others, particularly those of us innoculated by second wave feminism, who have a head start in seeing the inconsistencies and misogyny inherent in gender ideology.

Even so, other people's moral certainty/purity on this issue is discombobulating, and so many of us take an ever deeper dive into seeing what, exactly, is underpinning their stance. The more you learn, the more you see the emperor is not only wearing no clothes, he's taking a dump on women's rights while people cheer him on. It's natural for your views to evolve over time, especially as there are a lot of complexities in gender ideology that are hidden from the people who do not wish to see.

I would add though that public sympathy for things like TW having access to (all) women's refuges without any being permitted to remain single sex, and TW accessing female only toilets is largely based on the general public having received a huge amount of emotive and sympathetic anecdotes and public faces on behalf of the TW's feelings and needs.

The TQ+ political lobby has rather prevented the general public hearing equal voices and emotive anecdotes or even being aware of the disabled women, women of other faiths and cultures, women who are survivors of CSA/DV/DA and who have PTSD, being excluded from any facilities at all so that male people may take their preferred choice from all the facilities available.

The general public have not been ever permitted fair, informed decisions on all this, and the messaging has been very, very controlled in order to steer them to a pre decided and preferred outcome. As far as possible female needs and voices and issues are silenced, and where necessary derided and dismissed and monstered to continue controlling a narrative.

Yes, however, in the wake of the Amber Heard trial, the soaring 'epidemic' of dv and the child grooming gangs, as well as Caroline Criado-Perez' latest newsletter I'm increasingly thinking that the general public are more than happy to ignore women in distress to focus on the far more interesting, important, and sympathy-arousing issue of males in distress.

The genderist lobby didn't invent misogyny, they've just made good use of it to further their cause.

I think it’s a really sensible and healthy approach - too much certainty is a dangerous thing.

And if you have questions you’d like to ask of a ‘trans rights activist’ who is open to discussion, please feel free to fire away :)

It's very healthy to be undecided! I have swithered for a long time with a sense that both sides are arguing past each other, ignoring each other's strongest and most important points. So whichever side I listened to I found myself agreeing with the other side more! Both sides have intense ideology and very appealing rhetoric.

I have gradually shifted towards one side because the facts and the evidence (at least the ones I know about so far!) go that particular way.

And I think it is really important to look beyond the rhetoric. To take one example, one interesting question the Scottish Equalities and Human Rights committee asked (and which was poorly answered by the guy from LGBA) was "doesn't what you are saying about young people sound very like Section 28?" My own answer would be, yes the rhetoric is similar and that's partly why the TRA side has so much traction. When adults are caring and concerned, nobody wants to be That Person arguing against the rights of young people to live their lives openly as whatever they are. But that's just the rhetoric. The evidence and the facts about young gay people in the 1980-90s and young trans people now are very different.

I was in my 30s in the 1990s. Yes, being gay or bi was seen as a bit "cool" in the media back then but there was never any evidence that very many more unhappy children were becoming gay or bisexual as a result. Whereas there is evidence now of social contagion online driving some girls (in particular) towards medical gender transition. And another fact is there is no direct physical harm caused by living life as a lesbian whereas there is permanent physical damage caused by medical gender transition.

So, the rhetoric may sound the same but the facts are very different.

And it's very OK to be undecided when we don't (maybe can't!) know the facts.

I would like to know why women talking about things that matter to them and discussing women's rights get shouted down /drowned out/have their meetings disrupted by those on 'the other side'? Surely if you are secure in your position you should want everyone to hear the other side's view?

And also, what rights are you after - as a trans rights activist? What rights do people who are trans not have that everyone else does?

‘And if you have questions you’d like to ask of a ‘trans rights activist’ who is open to discussion, please feel free to fire away :)’

Can I ask some, please?

Maybe the TA who volunteers to answer questions above could do so on a thread they start themselves? It's probably only fair, to avoid this thread being me-railed and obviously, to give them a clear platform of their own.

A helpful book in my view is The Transgender Issue; an argument for justice by Shon Faye. I didn't stop having GC views after reading it but it reminded me of some important things and I'm glad I read it. I'm still only halfway through Whipping Girl by Julia Serano which is incredibly off-putting so it can be quite individual what strikes a chord.

the general public are more than happy to ignore women in distress to focus on the far more interesting, important, and sympathy-arousing issue of males in distress.

Oh totally this ^^

The ingrained unconscious misogyny both the active and the internalised is off the scale in the UK and embedded in our institutions.

Hi @aseriesofstillimages

Could you start a thread like the IAMA ones? Save derailing @Veryverycalmnows thread and be a very, very welcome addition to FWR.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist and @Belovedfool
i’m reluctant to start a thread, which would inevitably mean I’d have to put in an awful lot of time responding to questions (many of which would, I imagine, come from people who are already entirely set in their views). I was more directing my offer specifically to the OP, as someone who seems genuinely open minded on this topic, and who said that her attempts to discuss with other people on the pro-trans side had not been successful.

@tabbycatstripy i don’t mind, but only if the OP doesn’t object to her thread being de-railed

@NancyDrawed I’ll wait to respond until OP has said if she objects to me derailing

Your problem is that most of us are open minded, just require logic and coherence, and, yes, we would have a lot of questions.

Maybe @Veryverycalmnow will ask you some and we can all have a read as she does!

I hadn't any view on this topic until I stumbled across it.

It was pretty easy to make up my mind. The feminist side were presenting coherent arguments based data and information and just common sense based on known patterns of male offending behaviour. The other side weren't addressing these arguments, often lied about what the feminists arguments were andt largely weren't saying much other than 'hater!' 'transphobe' 'no debate!'.

And the more this has gone on, the more predictions made by feminists are coming true. And that's how science works isn't it? You have an hypothesis, make a prediction, do the experiment. If your experiment gets a positive result your theory is strengthened.

I would be prepared to re-examine my views, but the other side are not really saying anything to convince me.

Thanks for being open to questions- I would like to know if you (or any trans activist friends) recognise why women feel quite protective of their identity as women and maybe that they are worrying about the future? I have been thinking a lot about what women have been through historically and what a woman goes through physically and emotionally during a lifetime and wondered if there is a way that instead of saying transwomen are women, it could be possible to accept a difference exists and suggest respectful alternatives for moving forward? I will just add that I am not speaking for anyone, but really appreciate having a chance to ask this., so thank you. Thanks again for some really insightful comments everyone.

There’s an interesting thread on this subject here:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4563609-what-made-you-change-your-mind?reply=117718608

I guess some of the top of the list questions for me would include:

• What are we going to do with the females who are excluded from any provision so that female only spaces can include male people? Inclusion should include them too. Intersectionality should recognise their vulnerabilities and intersecting needs, which include a need for female only spaces.

• What are we going to do with homosexual people? Particularly those who wish to be out and proud and homosexual and to be free to express this as they have always done until very recently, without coercion to change to fit other people's desires?

• Why can we not look for diversity of solutions and have a range that work for everyone instead of this having to involve losers? How is this going to end anywhere positive for anyone or be sustainable? How does this create good feeling between groups instead of set up bad feeling, resentment and entrenched separation?

• Where is the reciprocal kindness please?

You are not exactly specific about what you agree with or disagree with - 'certain things' could be anything. What are some of the things that you agree with 'both' sides on - although I don't agree there are only 'both' sides.
On the subject of single--sex facilities I consider them essential for women and a civilised arrangement that works well for the comfort and convenience of both women and men. What some activists, official and commercial organisations want is mixed sex not 'gender neutral' and it is important not to let it be put across as some sort of unthreatening notion such as neutral. It is dangerous and unacceptable for women and girls. What was put across by headteachers as 'gender neutral' school uniforms often turned out to be no such thing but a prohibition on girls wearing skirts or traditional girls' clothing.
It is up to you to decide what you think and what you want as to single or mixed facilities.

There are things I disagree with people on here about, often about terminology and use of language but that's the nature of opinions and positions often passionately held and it doesn't mean that I take to the keyboard or take issue necessarily when I see something stated or that it changes my own position or perception, although that can sometimes happen too.