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.

And there are two other things to remember when reading here.

Most posters are not necessarily talking about "ordinary trans people". But we are ALL talking about transactivists, TRAs, and organisations like Stonewall, who lobby against women's rights, actively harrass, hound from jobs, seek court cases against some women, prevent when from meeting to discuss women's issues etc.

And we have a specific set of T+C's here. They constrain how we discuss some issues. So some discussions sound really stilted. Much like the segregation of the feminist forum we, the regular users, did not ask for this and are daily discomfited by it. So if something sounds odd do ask and someone will try to explain.

Questioning things is good. Discussing things is good. There are things that are debatable and things that aren't though imo. The main thing on this topic which isn't even a bit debatable is whether people can change sex. They definitely can't.

@aseriesofstillimages - fair enough, I have no wish to derail ververycalmnow's thread and understand your reluctance to start an AMA.

I'll just have to hope the OP wants to know the answers to my questions and asks for themselves!

I don't mind anyone derailing by the way. If things go in a different direction and helps answer some questions then great🙂

The main thing on this topic which isn't even a bit debatable is whether people can change sex. They definitely can't.

They can't according to current scientific understanding, but nothing in science is undebatable. I think we should debate things like this and argue for them on the basis of the evidence, because that contrasts with an argument against that has no evidence supporting it.

It's like the common TRA "outraged and indignant" response that they "won't debate my existence!" Why not? I will. I'm happy to argue that I materially exist and exist as a member of the sex class woman, on the basis of material evidence, and to have that debate with someone who thinks the "gender identity" of "woman" exists and makes a male a woman - because I don't think they have evidence for that and the debate will show them up. Or, if they do have good evidence and arguments, I'll listen to them and change my view.

You can't prove the non existence of something. That even has its own theory - Black Swan.

So we know that no human being can change sex.

We know that the science this is based on is upheld not lessened by the newer data about DSDs

We know that what TRAs are calling changing sex is nothing of the sort.

The whole debate goes something like

"I have changed sex"
"No you have not, that is impossible"
"But I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it"
"Tough!"

All the rest of that, the political and scientific debate isn't all that deep. It doesn't have to be. It isn't 'complicated' as so many nervous politicians have said. Men are men, women are women. That is science, biology, immutable/

Feminine and masculine? Whole different kettle of fish and could be debated until the cows come home (all female, obviously)

Oh! And if ever there was to be real evidence that human beings could change sex under specific circumstances one of two things would happen:

The majority of TRAs would mis it because it would be very complex. Quite a few posters here would be able to explain it though and soon enough most GC posters would understand it.

The bit that was understood would be bastardised and used to prove all sorts of unrelated schlock, lots of "Told you so's" etc. And STILL they wouldn't understand and would blatantly lie to prove their point, over and over again.

But that hasn't happened. We have no reason to believe that it ever will. So it is reasonable to say "Human beings cannot change sex" and to know you are right!

I would say it’s some women, not all women, who feel that way. I have one good friend who is very concerned by the possible ‘erasure’ of women as a result of trans inclusive language, and we have had a number of long and heated debates about it. Most of my other cis gender female friends either don’t have strong feelings about it, or like me are supportive of trans inclusion.

As to whether I recognise why some women do feel that using trans inclusive language will undermine their identity as women, I’m not sure I do. I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context. So it is possible to meaningfully day ‘trans women are women’ while also acknowledging that trans woman have some important biological differences from cis gender women (and from trans men and non binary people who were recorded female at birth); and that they are unlikely to have experienced society in the same way as those who have always been perceived as female by others. But then I also believe that the life experiences of cis gender women (and other people recorded female at birth) vary massively - there isn’t one monolithic ‘female experience’.

A lot of the focus in this debate is on trans women, but for me it’s as much about referring to trans men respectfully and in a way that they feel comfortable with - if a person tells me that they don’t regard themselves as a woman, and feel uncomfortable being referred to as such, I’m not going to take it on myself to contradict them.

@NancyDrawed

coming back to your questions

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?

Do you mean why do women get shut down in general when talking about things that matter to them (us)? Or why have people who advance ‘gender critical’ views (many of whom are women) been the target of criticism, protests etc? If the latter, it’s generally because the people in question have expressed views which the people criticising/protesting at them found deeply offensive. I’m not saying that in all these cases the criticism or protests have been conducted appropriately. But I do think in general that we should be able to strongly criticise and protest against the expression of views that we believe are harmful. For example, I have in the past taken part in pro choice protests outside abortion clinics, for instance there was a religious group staging a ‘silent vigil’ outside a clinic, holding up pictures of foetuses etc, so a group of us turned up to make as much noise as we could, and vocally support women’s right to choose. They were exercising their right to express views that I disagree with profoundly, and we were exercising our right to express our disagreement.

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?

I should say that I only used the phrase ‘trans rights activist’ as a shorthand to explain my overall position, I wouldn’t generally describe myself in that way. It’s not a matter of fighting for formal rights (just as it isn’t these days in the UK for women or queer people) - we are all equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of sex, sexuality, gender. It’s about fighting against prejudice and stigma, and for acceptance and understanding.

I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context

What is the 'social' meaning of the word 'woman'? I have never properly understood this.

I have in the past taken part in pro choice protests outside abortion clinics,

Please consider the women using these clinics are often going through a difficult experience. The last thing they need is people exercising the right to protest, even if you are permitted legally to do so. A compassionate and considerate response would put the wellbeing of women above your desire to make noise and express your feelings.

The "social" meaning of the word is usually taken to mean a mix of stereotypes that many women find offensive and have been fighting against for years. These include ideas that women are better suited to domestic work, being passive, being submissive and even extreme sexual stereotypes (often pushed by some TRAs). Accepting a social meaning of woman is disastrous for women as a whole. It is also ridiculous as a definition as the only trait that really unites women across all societies and at all times is that we are female.

I believe (obviously) that there are social roles that many women fulfil. Not every aspect of that is a ‘stereotype’ per se, although it gives rise to powerful and damaging stereotypes. But there’s also such a thing as more typical female behaviour. That emphatically does not mean that anyone who behaves in those more typically female ways is a woman, or that anyone who does not is a man. That is fallacious reasoning and only serves to enforce a stereotyped idea of what a woman ‘should’ be.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean feminine or female behaviour? Can you give some examples of female behaviour that isn't a stereotype or based on biology?

What I mean by that is that aspects of male and female socialisation aren’t stereotypes. Women, for example, (in my experience) are more likely to share intimate parts of their personal histories with friends. Men tend to watch porn more than women. Women are often more focused on the needs of children than men. It’s not stereotyping to admit that there are more common female experiences and behaviours, and more common male ones.

And do I mean feminine or female? I think ‘feminine’ mostly refers to things that can be taken on and off, like clothing and make-up. But I also think it refers to things that are still socialised (not innate) but not removable either. They’re the common psychological result of typical female socialisation. So an example of that might be female friendships and emotional intimacy. It’s not inevitable that a female person will have such friendships (it’s certainly not what makes them female) but it is far more common for female people to have them than male people. It’s not ‘feminine’ in the way that pink lipstick is regarded as feminine. It’s not female either (as in, an essential aspect of female biology).

So I’m not sure.

Yes, more common. However it's a range, that applies to both sexes. Not everyone who focuses on the needs of children is biologically female. Not everyone who likes spot welding is biologically male.

The only single uniting characteristic that half the human race has in common is being biologically female. And variants of any kind within that group do not stop it being a specific, identifiable group, even chromosomally. There are only two sexes.

The whole point of arguing all this is purely and simply to try to justify the idea that male people can belong to the sex class of their choice rather than their physical reality. That's it. That's all.

And the obvious sexism in one sex feeling free to wholly redefine the other to their better convenience is front and centre, regardless of how much this minimises, trivialises, tries to control and dictate their experiences, (all of which is about outer male perception of what being female 'must feel like' because women's actual voices... pah, boring) and to try to suppress the diversity and enormous range of what it means to live in a biologically female body? It's nothing progressive or new. This is just common or garden variety old school misogyny.

Your example of being focused on children is partly due to biology and partly because society allows men not to! Your other examples may be true in your own time and place but are not universal. I am not saying they are not true for YOU but they are no basis for definitions. Indeed, arguing that the definition of woman includes being better at looking after children has been used against having women in the workplace for centuries.

Thanks for answering my questions. I did mean 'some' women feel that way.
I have another question and I hope it doesn't offend anybody:
Is it important to say 'cis' each time? I don't really like the word. I used to get called a 'sissy' by an ex colleague and it annoys me personally to be described as cis. Who decided on that word? Would it be ok to use a different word?

And exactly what Zero says about what is biologically innate to female, and what is cultural socialisation given to males and females about what females should be and do?

The fact that females are having to vigorously try to resist males redefining them when even the police are working against them should be a bit of a giveaway about unequal social power.

@aseriesofstillimages

Thanks for answering, although as always it is hard to have a 'conversation' via text. I agree that we have a right to protest, but with your example, while I accept that you believe a loud and vocal support of the right to choose was the best way to protest, I agree with MagnoliaTaint in this example and personally would probably have stood silently with a placard to exercise my right to protest.

I wasn't in Manchester for the Standing for Women rally, but in a situation like that, or a WPUK meeting etc, no one is forced to listen to what the speakers are saying. If you (general you) feel offended, move on! Or pause and listen and either think 'I don't agree with that' or 'I hadn't considered that view' and maybe change your position on part of your belief. As I said in my first post on this thread, my position went from one extreme to the other but I am more accepting of TM and TW now than I was before. I do think it is useful to hear both sides to be properly informed, but I have never yet seen a trans rights meeting advertised either in person or posted online afterwards like the WPUK and SFW meetings are - perhaps I am not looking in the right places? I would love to hear what is said at such gatherings.

As for the rights issue, I totally get that acceptance is wanted, but that is where I think the transwomen are women mantra has caused problems. Before I knew anything about this, if I heard 'transwoman' I thought 'transsexual' but of course transwoman is now taken to mean anyone who says they are and as far as I am aware that includes men with fetishes who get a thrill from performing feminity and being in women's spaces. Acceptance of someone demonstrating their belief isn't a one way street either - I can accept that a man prefers to think of himself as a woman, but he must then also accept that I continue to see him as a man - he can't force me to see him as he sees himself.
I would want to be understanding and show compassion to a person whose body dysmorphia is so bad that altering it is their only option. On the other hand, I don't consent to being a prop in a man's fetish!

It will be no surprise to you to know that my stance is woman = adult human female, so for me:
Women are women
Men are men
Transwomen are transwomen (and are male)
Transmen are transmen (and are female)

The trouble is that while in social situations it is possible to go along with someone else's perception of themselves (pronouns etc) there are situations where sex matters and holds more weight than any self perceived identity in my opinion.

OK with whom?
It’s imperative that you are undecided until you decide on your opinion. Actually it’s unavoidable. If you’re asking if it’s ok not to agree with the group on this board when using it, then I’d say for most posters it’s fine but a few will try and shut you down or scare you away. It’s a group of individuals so some you will admire and gel with, and some not so much.

‘Yes, more common. However it's a range, that applies to both sexes. Not everyone who focuses on the needs of children is biologically female. Not everyone who likes spot welding is biologically male.’

Of course.

This is the exact issue. It is certainly less common for women to like spot welding. It’s less common for women to like Formula 1. It’s less common for women to follow cricket.

Those are observations, not stereotypes.

The stereotyping comes when people say, ‘How can you like cricket, you’re a woman?’ Or, as the trans activists do, ‘If you like welding you can’t be a woman.’

But it’s actually important to note that some things are socialised into women from childhood and can’t be assumed like putting on a dress. We may not be pleased about that socialisation. We may regard much of it as part of the oppression of women. But it is foolish to deny it exists. We see it every day.

‘And exactly what Zero says about what is biologically innate to female, and what is cultural socialisation given to males and females about what females should be and do?’

It’s a great question. I don’t think I know exactly.

‘Your example of being focused on children is partly due to biology and partly because society allows men not to! Your other examples may be true in your own time and place but are not universal.’

I said they are not universal.