Wouldn't this be more sensible?

[Dipsy12]

So I'm a bit new to the trans debate but the most I read the more confused I become.

I'd always worked on the basis your biological sex is something you just are. I.e. I'm a woman because I was born one. It's nothing to do with how I feel, it's just biological fact.

Then there's gender identity. I don't really think I have a gender identity. But some people do and want to identify as male/female/non binary etc. That seems fine to me. Happy to call them whatever name they like and use preferred pronouns etc. But obviously this doesn't change their biological sex.

The law seems to allow you to change your sex if you have gone through a formal transition procedure. Even though biologically you can't change your sex I think this is probably acceptable given its likely to be a very small group of people who it applies to and if someone is prepared to go through all of that because they feel they're in the wrong body then it's probably fair enough we recognise them as their assumed sex.

But the more I read the more this seems like a controversial view. I definitely never would have said I'm transphobic but the conflation of sex and gender seems mad to me.

Gender doesn't 'matter' for anything official but clearly matters to people individually.

Exactly. And there are lots of things like that, that we know how to deal with. Religions, star signs, weird hobbies,

We should be dealing with this the same way - live and let live, basically.

The problems only arise because they specifically want this to replace sex. There would be the same problems if you tried to replace sex with anything.

Hence one of the main campaign groups on the other side simply calling itself Sex Matters.

That's the entire conflict. One side believes it does, the other side believes it doesn't.

This side is quite happy for some people to believe in "gender". We're sceptical that it needs any recognition, but may be it can be recognised, in which case we'd put "none", just as atheists would under "religion". We're basically liberal.

The other side demands that sex must not be recognised or recorded. A very strong demand - much stronger than ours - that particularly hurts women.

Totally agree with all of this. Thing is I'm pretty sure most people would

Yes, most people would agree which is why it's so important for genderists to hide the truth and change language.

But why? Why can't everyone just live and let live?

But why? Why can't everyone just live and let live?

often because they have a disordered personality which makes them perceive a need to control the behaviour of others. We’re not allowed to join the dots on this forum, but try the thought on for size when observing the behaviour of trans rights activists.

But why? Why can't everyone just live and let live?

We could. And that would be the logical goal of a civil rights movement.

But this is not a civil rights movement. "Trans" people are not being excluded from society in any way, like gay people, or women were. They already have as many rights as anyone else.

But there are a group of activists (not representing all "trans" people) demanding special treatment, at the expense of others.

A relevant piece by Jane Clare Jones:

Gay Rights and Trans Rights - A Compare and Contrast

What I want to do here is think through why the concept of ‘discrimination-as-phobia’ worked for the gay rights movement, and why, despite superficial similarities, it doesn’t accurately capture what is at stake in the trans rights debate, and actually serves as a tool of political propaganda and obfuscation to push that agenda through. That is, I’m going to argue that accusations of ‘homophobia’ were a politically powerful and basically on-the-money part of gay rights discourse, while the use of ‘transphobia’ is an inaccurate parallel which grossly distorts public perceptions of the issues involved in the trans rights debate, and is doing so in the service of actually preventing that debate taking place.

[...]

The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence.

But why? Why can't everyone just live and let live?

I’m interested in this

I read it as you thinking that the women in this board should chill out

have I read it correctly?

Re the title of this thread. Wouldn't what be more sensible?

As per @NecessaryScene 's suggestion, I really cannot think of any scenario when I would care about someone's gender.

But I do think you'll find there are circumstances in which you absolutely DO care about someone's sex, once you ponder it a bit.

If you're heterosexual, you'll care that your partner is the opposite sex to you.
If you're homosexual, you'll care that your partner is the same sex as you.

And the many circumstances when a woman would feel vulnerable in a male presence - hospital ward, domestic violence shelter, refuge, prison; I care a great deal about someone's sex in these settings. My caring about what sex someone is has nothing to do with being respectful, and everything to do with my sense of safety, privacy and dignity. I am entitled to all three.

its likely to be a very small group of people who it applies to and if someone is prepared to go through all of that because they feel they're in the wrong body then it's probably fair enough we recognise them as their assumed sex.

I'm sorry, OP, but it's not just about being kind to the small number of people who genuinely believe they are or should be the opposite sex. It's about all the vast number of men who take advantage by claiming to be trans in order to get access to women's spaces; they don't need to show any evidence. Even though the government decided against changing the law to allow gender self-ID (after a public consultation showed huge opposition), in many areas we already have self-ID in practice.

And what about the current trend for teenaged girls to claim they are transmen or non-binary? It's not just another harmless teenage fashion. They're getting mastectomies and taking drugs that do irreversible damage.

No I don't think you have read into what I'm saying correctly.

I don't understand why gender identity has to eradicate sex. Why can't the two co exist as separate concepts? That's what I meant by live and let live. For example, I'm not sure I really get what having a gender identity means. I've never had an inner sense of "womeness". I just am a woman because I was born one. That doesn't mean I have an issue with other people saying they have a gender identity like I don't have an issue with someone having a religion even though I don't have one myself.
Equally why is there a need to replace biological sex with gender identity when clearly they're not the same thing, it's factually incorrect and creates all sorts of complexity and confusion.

Have you actually read beyond the first sentence of my post that you quoted?!

I'm not aware of this. Where can you self id your sex to access to certain spaces? This seems odd.

Do we know why teenage girls are being affected in this way? Is there data on this that I can find anywhere?

I don't really have anyone in real life to talk to about this stuff. I don't want to get accused of being transphobic and my husband thinks it's all a silly phase and will pass so not bothered about talking about it.

The government decided to allow some people to change their birth certificate to the opposite sex to what they were. Then in the EqA they allowed those who were intending to go through the admin process, protection as a PC. (Odd when it was supposedly very few people).

Now everyone is trying to reverse engineer explanations to these bonkers laws, rather than make those who made and now support the decisions explain their rational.

The reason we can't make sense of it or make it work with our sex based rights is because it's a bonkers law. Nothing we can say on this thread can change the fact.

I'm not aware of this. Where can you self id your sex to access to certain spaces? This seems odd.

Wherever the provider decides you can. This could be a shop with changing rooms, or it could be the Ministry of Justice with women's prisons. In the latter case, there was a court case and the judge was forced to conclude that though it might not be desirable to house sex offenders on the female estate, it was not actually unlawful, according to the hotchpotch laws we have. (I think some posters might argue that it is - will leave that to more knowledgeable posters). Schools, sports teams, rape crisis centres - you name it. The provider will assume that anyone in the women's section must therefore identify as a woman, even if they have their cock out in the changing room. They don't have to do things this way, but an increasing number go out of their way to. A university had official posters up recently saying "Do you think someone is in the wrong toilet? You're wrong - make room and repent" (paraphrased).

Do we know why teenage girls are being affected in this way? Is there data on this that I can find anywhere?
Read the book Irreversible Damage.

Your best first steps are looking up the “Break it down for me” thread here and reading the very accessible Trans by Helen Joyce, which covers the overall picture in the U.K.

Irreversible Damage is solely about the massive surge in girls identifying as trans. It’s bloody frightening and I see it across my teens’ friendship groups.

Thanks for all the recommendations, have downloaded several books onto my Kindle!

I don't understand why gender identity has to eradicate sex. Why can't the two co exist as separate concepts? That's what I meant by live and let live. For example, I'm not sure I really get what having a gender identity means. I've never had an inner sense of "womeness". I just am a woman because I was born one. That doesn't mean I have an issue with other people saying they have a gender identity like I don't have an issue with someone having a religion even though I don't have one myself.
Equally why is there a need to replace biological sex with gender identity when clearly they're not the same thing, it's factually incorrect and creates all sorts of complexity and confusion.

Are you sure you're a newbie here? you've pretty much summarised many years of GC threads....!

I think a lot of us started off from this position. The trouble is that trans activism is trying (quite successfully) to erase sex. In fact Shon Faye, a tw, told women "enjoy ur erasure". That is the point. That we no longer have a word to describe ourselves, not woman, not female. I don't think it should be possible to change sex on documents. It creates too many problems - and all of them impact women. Enough. We gave an inch and they took a mile.