What made you change your mind?

[JellySaurus]

There have been many discussions on MN with supporters of trans ideology. For thoughtful, engaged posters, the main sticking points appear to be TWAW and Tw are at greater danger/risk of suicide. Posters appear to be deeply committed to these beliefs regardless of the lack of supporting evidence.

It seems to me that there is a parallel here with people deeply committed to religious beliefs, such as life after death. Beliefs that inform their conduct and without which they cannot consider themselves to be ‘good people’.

We used to describe the process of becoming gender critical in mountaineering terms (now banned) but for some people is this perhaps more of a conversion? From believer to atheist.

Is this meaningful to you? In terms of a change in your beliefs, what made you change your mind?

I think I hadn't realised how significant the physical differences were between men and women -- and that emphasising those physical differences was somehow admitting weakness on women's part. And therefore, if women didn't want to be 'defined by their bodies', we had to pretend there wasn't that much difference.

(That sounds idiotic now. I am literally half DH's weight and 16 inches shorter than he is. But even if we were the other way round, he was never going to be the one to menstruate, bear the children, breastfeed, have the gynae cancer scans or start the menopause.)

@EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn it might have been! I can't remember exactly what it looked like. Thank you for spreading the word. I think I saw a similar poster in a service station loo around that time too! And there's an active stickerer in my area now too. Always thankful when I see it, and I give the stickers a nod as I pass by

Sorry if someones said - what does top of the mountain mean? Why is it banned?

It was a combination of seeing a very thoughtful and compassionate TW on Tumblr being doxxed by TRAs for heresy, and seeing Susie Green’s TED Talk.

I’d never thought TWAW but I definitely thought that all TW had hormones and surgery and had somehow earned the right to BE women.

I grew up with the Hayley Cropper storyline and that was an excellent bit of propaganda. That was my only frame of reference.

Pretty much the minute I started looking into it (after a pasting from Dittany on here after I was handwringing about the meanness towards these poor tortured souls) I saw the truth.

I’ve opened up a few hundred eyes in my interactions in RL since. Other than a few true believers (my just adult kids fgs); everyone goes, wait, what?

Yea, Hayley Cropper was a sweetie, wasn't she. Played by a female. Now why was that, I wonder?

For me it was the reaction to the World Rugby decision.

Up till then I'd thought that rational people could eventually solve this - that there must be a way to accommodate compassion for people with gender dysphoria while still respecting the fact that female people exist and have needs. And I wasn't able to share in the anger over things like toilets and changing rooms (not claiming that anger isn't justified, just that it's not something I feel personally) so the problems didn't feel insurmountable with a bit of common sense.

When I realised that even female necks and spines would be sacrificed in the name of "trans rights" then I lost hope.

Generally now I'm just tired of the hysteria and emotional blackmail - the constant claims that we want trans people "exterminated" - that even an innocent misgendering will make someone commit suicide, the sheer illogicality of the beliefs people claim to hold (the fact they don't actually believe them deep down is part of the problem.)

So I guess I've either "seen the light" or "been radicalised" depending on who's making the judgement.

Finding out that 85%+ (and personally I think it’s probably more like 97%) of TW had absolutely no intention of getting rid of their cock and balls.

There is a huge difference between the believers in a religion and those who believe that TWAW.
The believers in a religion are prepared to believe with out a shred of evidence to support their belief.
Those prepared to accept that TWAT do so despite all evidence to the contrary.

I thought TW were TW and didn't think that was controversial, I had a close friend who was transexual and they'd never given me the impression they thought they were actually a woman. I thought Greer was being controversial to stay relevant. Sure we still had everyday sexism but we had equality in law and that genie was not going back in the bottle; we just needed to persist until culture caught up with the law.

And then whilst I was burying my head in the sand and pretending it had nothing to do with me I read a piece in the Guardian which was supposed to be an apology from a TA for their intimidating and aggressive behaviour at one of the early WPUK meetings. Before getting to the apology they lamented that they had been photographed and filmed with less than perfect hair, I had a real WTF moment. The author then went on to talk about the literal violence of women as a justification for their own appalling behaviour, again WTF.

I googled every which way from Sunday to find examples of the violence perpetrated by this new breed of frightening women and found nothing but links to Mumsnet. Once again WTF. I ignored those links and kept searching. Mnetters were all terribly MC and obsessed with making sure Tabitha and Oscar ate nothing but an organic diet, right?

Eventually I had to open one of those links because I couldn't find anything else to answer my questions. I found out I'd been an ignorant arse and fell down a never ending rabbit hole. It took about a week to realise that compromise would never be possible and we needed to repeal the GRA. I've had moments where I've wondered if I've missed something crucial and central to the debate but no matter how willing I am to look at evidence for the case that TWAW it never makes sense and in fact the insanity just gets worse.

The word 'peak' in the context for this board is when you realise the emperor has no clothes - that men can't be women and vice versa.

Some times there are repeated moments - as to be expected when you realise the many and varied ways that believing untruths and compelling others to believe untruths harms people.

The only thing I really significantly changed my opinion on was the medical element. Which is to say, at one time I was incined to think taht there might be some kind of brain difference that accounted for why some people felt alianated from their sex. I had read some of the theories about hormone washes and such back in the early 90s and that seemed like a possible thing. If that were true it might make "being trans" a kind of intersex condition, or something similar anyway.

I don't think the evidence supports that, now, and for some people it seems quite clear that is not what is going on at all. In fact overall it seems to be related to other types of identity and dysphoria types of disorders, and therefore that kind of approach is likely to be the more appropriate treatment.

I tend to think some ideas like this or vague sense around the medical side lies behind a lot of people's support for TWAW. So challenging it will require medical bodies being really cleal about the realities.

No, not at all. More that some defenders of transgenderism behave (think?) like believers of a religion. So logic doesn't necessarily influence them.

I never thought men could be women and I don't think anyone does think that. I think anyone who says it knows they are saying something untrue but because it's very easy to find backup they don't have to think about it any further. Basically I think they are weak and dishonest.

Maybe some people are taken in by the "sex is a spectrum" thing but even that only goes so far. Even if it were on a spectrum (which is not possible in the first place) what end would people with penises be if not male?

It doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny so I stand by; it's just an easy and lazy route to take.

I'm the same FOJN, I am very into evidence-based policy and data-driven science, and yet TWAW only makes sense if you conceptualise 'woman' as nothing more than a feeling in a man's head. I've had bitter rows with BIL and asked what a TW has in common with me. I have never had an answer.

I used to be on quite strongly on the "be kind" side. I'd only known TW who were attracted to men and had had such difficult lives that I thought a little bit of compassion was a small price to pay with very little risks.

Then gradually I started to meet TW who didn't seem to be at all traumatised, but bullying and entitled and sleazy towards women. I realised you make laws and policy around the bad apples, not the good ones, but I assumed we would be able to differentiate between these groups - the GRA seemed reasonable and surely social pressure would limit the 60yo men in leather mini skirts to some degree.

My real concern came later, I work in ethics and I find there to be real problems with consent, I don't think these young people are fully grasping what they are signing up for. I remember one TW, I think Lily M, saying casually that they would just get a womb put in. I can't get my head round anyone medical performing surgery which will leave someone infertile, when the patient has such limited maturity and understanding. The criteria we make people meet to simply send out a questionnaire or to access anonymised hospital records just didn't align with the special ethical bypass being asked for here.

I also think that allowing people to mess with their medical records is unethical. I think it is closer to the real meaning of transphobia for trans people to be receiving worse healthcare - having blood tests reviewed using the wrong sex category, missing screening or pregnancy testing - than everyone else. Nobody has lovely, happy medical notes, but you can't just edit the bits you don't like. I can't believe that having your actual sex listed where you don't even see it is more traumatic than sitting down and having a doctor say "with a history of stillbirth..." or "having had cancer before..." It is so tone deaf for people to be fighting this, it isn't in anyone's interests to have made medical notes a battle ground. Whoever made that an issue and pushed people to argue to have inaccurate notes does not have anyone's interests at heart. That made me really wary of the movement.

I believe the point for me to step into the conversation was when I realised that males were absolutely wanting to be considered females and especially in regards to accessing the rights set up to progress women and girls.

I have never believed that TW AW, and to me being told that I had say that or even worse, act like I believed it, seemed absurd. I read FWR and realised that changes were being made to accommodate this in ways that were detrimental to females who still needed prioritisation and I was horrified that this was being done in the name of inclusion, instead of working out solutions that may accommodate both needs.

But I have never believed that males could be females and find that people do believe this and insist that it is true and righteous very concerning.

I don’t think I ‘changed my mind’ so much as formed an opinion where I had previously defaulted to (what I thought of as) the progressive, open-minded position, because I thought of myself as a progressive, open-minded sort of person.

To the extent that I had an opinion on TWAW, I did not believe TW were literally female in the biological sense. What I believed was that there was some scope for ambiguity in the definition of the word ‘woman’; that it wasn’t necessary to define it in purely biological terms. In other words, that TW are women in one sense of the word.

What got me past that was a comment on another MN thread saying (I paraphrase) ‘You’re coming at this from the wrong angle. Instead of getting stuck on the definition of ‘woman’, ask yourself why we aren’t allowed any word meaning ‘biologically female’.’ And of course that’s exactly it. Woman, female, wimpund – none of them are acceptable if we define them in biological terms, because the whole point is to downplay the importance, and in some cases even deny the existence, of biological sex.

More broadly, the main thing that discredited gender ideology for me was how regressive it is. I have always believed that we shouldn't let ourselves be constrained by the narrow boxes that society puts us in. For a long time, I thought that gender ideology was part of challenging stereotypes and gender norms. Until I finally understood that, in fact, it ultimately reinforces them.

In terms of what drew me into the debate in the first place, it was JK Rowling – reading what she wrote on the subject, which sounded thoughtful and reasonable and nuanced to me, and the response to what she wrote, which was… none of those things. Before that, I guess I assumed that gender critical people were mostly bigots that weren’t worth engaging with in any meaningful way.

I never believed TWAW, but was probably of the 'be kind' persuasion. I remember talking to my daughter about tw in female spaces and my concern that 'men' would take advantage of this. It seemed unfair that tw would be penalised and women put at risk because of the action of 'men'. My thoughts obviously weren't very coherent. I couldn't see the problem with what JKR wrote but was dubious because of her support for Maya, I was misinformed as to why Maya had lost her job. I got better informed and my reservations disappeared. It was probably a drip-drip of stories that made me fully GC.

Finding MN fwr was a Godsend. Although I doubt I add much depth to the discussions.

I never thought that TW were anything but trans, but didn't really give it much thought.

I only really got vocal and angry when the #no debate business started.

I mean obviously they aren't women. They never will be, however much surgery or hormones they use. Utter nonsense. So #be kind went out of the window.

there were a few things I remember. One was some Twitter comment saying “cis women need to move over [for tw]. There was a video which was of women being verbally abused by TW which was captioned along the lines of “yay we bullied some TERFs”. On the flip side photos if Hannah Mouncey on mumsnet and coming across other things here that made me realise it was all bollocks…

For me it was reading about The Degenderettes exhibit at the San Francisco Public Library. Males threatening females with violence if we don't comply. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

I never thought TW were actual women, I just thought we said it to be kind. It was when I realised that I was meant to believe that TW were actual literal women just like me, I thought “no way”.

Same.

Like others the fact that the majority of TW hadn't had surgery was one of the first, main eye openers for me.

In my pre FWR days I worked somewhere with a TW client. I pointed the person in the direction of the ladies loos when they asked. In retrospect I remember them saying things about my body to me and other people that made me uncomfortable but I just (and was expected to, I guess) brush it off. Whereas the reality of a man in is 50s saying things like that to a woman in her 20s would have been seen at the time as unacceptable.

I feel like my awareness and shock of the situation just keeps getting worse even now and the realisation that this is about WAY more than just in TW should be using female toilets (which I think a lot of people seem to think it's about).

I'm in a FB group for sex education for parents at the minute and some of the things that people post are absolutely chilling with regards to pre school children being described as 'trans' and somethings being a massive safe guarding issue. Don't know if anyone knows which group I'm talking about or is in it. Don't know if I'd be allowed to name it.

Also, I'm another one who didn't know we couldn't use the mountaineering term any more! When did this come about and why!?

As a grandparent with part-time responsibility for grandchildren I came to MN to try to get up-to-date with contemporary thoughts about childcare and so on.

I looked at FWR recreationally and noticed what was going on with trans stuff. At first I was interested mainly to collect logical fallacies and mistakes (I have long kept a collection; job related in inception). Lots of those, some entertaining and surprising in their rank stupidity. ("A woman is by definition anyone who calls herself a woman". Huh? Really? By definition? ... "'Gender identity' is how you feel about your gender." Erh? What?)

Then I came across some of the societal consequences of the nonsense and started to worry. Most of my grandchildren are kind of gender non-conforming (we brought their parents up that way, long ago, seemed the right thing and it worked OK), and I worried that they might get recruited by fools with queered logic or crazy ideas about sex.

So I looked outwith MN ... and was horrified by what I found out in the real world.

Now here I am. Some of my children are academics and are wary of speaking up (!) Others are explicitly GC. My grandchildren know sex can't be changed ... but we all remain vigilant. And I speak up when I can. (Nothing to lose, now, only my status as volunteer here and there. What a thing to think about, though.)

O tempora, o mores! Indeed.