Isn't this a good thing?

[rumplestiltskinp]

Just looking for some way to clear my thoughts around this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11080589/Why-NHS-sexing-WOMENS-health-pages.html

The effect of this is;

Allowing women who "identify as male" to go and be treated for gynae problems whilst having their "gender identity" recognised and not being put off going for treatment regarding their female anatomy.

Means that men (people with male anatomy) are still going to be referred to as men and male with no conditioning to refer to them by their gender.

So on face value it seems like this policy does nothing to validate transwomen and does everything to ensure females go for the treatment they need.

Just like with unisex/mixed sex toilets it doesn't mean men can go into women's toilets, it means men and women use the same space - again not validating men as women.

Not saying I support any of this but I'm right about those observations, aren't I?

So have I got this straight? To you, gender expression is hair, make up, clothes, etc. None of which is an indication of one's sex?

I'm not sure if they are an indication of one's internal gender?

But in terms of gender identity (gender) one has a sense of whether or not one is male or female through thoughts? That's your internal gender identity?

Could you, with every word in the English language at your disposal, attempt a description of the thought process a male might have to make him think he has a female gender?

@SolasAnla yes I suppose pronouns are a form of expression as they are on the outside, I'd need to think about it some more.

In the mean time what I would say is I don't think the word Woman should be removed, and I don't think people should be 'forced' to do anything, I think people can choose how they want to act (or speak) but, rightly or wrongly, recognise that there could be consequences for that action or behaviour.

I would expect a single sex ward in a hospital to be single sex. I would expect the hospital to have a policy that complies with law and ensures dignity for all. The difficulty as you say is what ward should a trans person be put on. Perhaps the answer is a side or single room ward if they have one available, some of the trans people I know are fully medically transitioned and you really can't tell so wouldn't it completely 'out' them to put them on the public ward that aligns with their sex, as well as affecting the other patients on that ward who from the outside it looks like a person of the 'wrong sex' is among them? And even when you can tell I think dignity for all should still be respected so a side room as above is probably the way to go so our single sex spaces are respected.

Hi Datum, pretty much yeah I think.

So have I got this straight? To you, gender expression is hair, make up, clothes, etc. None of which is an indication of one's sex?

Yes although not just hair, make up, clothes etc. but the that's the general idea. And yes none of that indicates what sex we are.

I'm not sure if they are an indication of one's internal gender?*

No I don't think it is.*

But in terms of gender identity (gender) one has a sense of whether or not one is male or female through thoughts? That's your internal gender identity?*

Thoughts and feelings yeah.*

Could you, with every word in the English language at your disposal, attempt a description of the thought process a male might have to make him think he has a female gender?*

I'm not sure I even have a strong enough sense of my own gender let alone a males to describe feelings like that in words. But then I don't feel that strongly one way or another, perhaps it would be easier if it was 'wrong'. A sense of wrongness, uncomfortableness, sadness maybe? Who knows everyone is different.*

Sorry, bolding went wrong there.

Perhaps the answer is a side or single room ward if they have one available.

A side or single room on the ward that aligns with their sex is the solution, perfect.

But that's where it all falls down. The definition of a woman isn't a man who is sad or uncomfortable about being a male. Women are human you know. With our own set of shared characteristics and experiences which are completely outwith those of men.

When I was first looking into all this quite a few transwomen were upfront about wanting to inhabit the stereotypes of the opposite sex.

One on a thread here said he could only be 'vibrant' presenting as a woman. Another said he envied the 'mean girls' in Hollywood movies. Another that he wanted to go to coffee shops as a 'hot mess'.

It's only since women pointed out the rank sexism of upholding stereotypes in order to adopt them, that many transwomen will no longer define what this internal essence is. Despite wanting to base laws on it, it's just a feeling, different for everyone, indefinable, defying description.

Some do try though.

Grace Lavery likes being 'treated like shit and being the victim of honest, undisguised sexism.'

Julia Serano likes the cliche of women being good for only one thing and being humiliated.

Jacob Tobia wants very badly to be sexually objectified.

Andrea Long Chu describes the 'barest essentials' of femaleness as an open mouth, an expectant asshole and blank, blank eyes.

All these transwomen are noted academics and authors.

It seems that one of the definitions of 'gender' is the fetishisation of women's oppression for the sexual gratification of men.

Excellent post as ever @Datun how anyone can hear/read that and not see how regressive, sexist, misogynistic and quite frankly repulsive gender ideology and it adherents are I don't know.

Then of course there are two TW one of whom thinks women being seriously injured or killed during domestic violence is merely because of the eggshell skulls females have and it is therefore just rather unfortunate, the other of whom is an extreme porn advocate who champions using 16 year old girls in porn.

Those are the type of people you are fighting for @the winter soldier those are the type of people you are claiming deserve respect and dignity and to be considered women and part of womanhood.

Those are the type of people who apparently come under the trope of being so sad, been through so much, so oppressed yada, yada, yada.

Thanks for that. I agree that those examples are certainly unpleasant (understatement), and as you say sexist, misogynistic and sounds like a fetish. For those individuals the consequences as a minimum are women (and probably some non sexist men) seeing them for those attributes and probably judging them harshly.

I wouldn't tar them all with the same brush though, all people can be 'good' and 'bad', a few notable or notorious 'bad' ones doesn't equal the whole lot. I certainly don't 'fight' for anyone to be sexist, misogynistic and share their fetishes with all and sundry. (Private, not hurting anyone and everyone consenting adults fine.)

As women we need to have boundaries and if people push those boundaries (trans or not) we are entitled to maintain them.

PS I forgot to say, I hadn't heard of most of them so will have a read tomorrow, thank you for information

Then of course there are two TW one of whom thinks women being seriously injured or killed during domestic violence is merely because of the eggshell skulls females have and it is therefore just rather unfortunate, the other of whom is an extreme porn advocate who champions using 16 year old girls in porn.

Aren't those both the same TW (Jane Fae)?

If it's all about feelings and not about stereotypes, why are some gender ideology believers trying to posthumously trans every woman in history who stepped outside the narrow role expected of women of her time? (See current threads about Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I).

Surely this transing of anyone gender nonconforming should be just as offensive to those believers as saying that someone can't be trans because they conform to stereotypes for their sex.

Julia Serano wrote The Whipping Girl, which was turned into a film starring Eddie Redmayne, if I recall correctly.

Lavery is an academic at an American uni I believe, teaching English literature I think it is. They've just written a book about their penis.

You could try Anne Lawrence who has written extensively about the issue. They are also a transwoman, with a little more honesty, I would say.

Having listened to so many men who say they are women, there's not a single part of me that believes in an inner gender. I haven't seen any narrative that supports it. Quite the opposite.

i'm not saying every transwoman is driven by the fetishisation of women, but it's clear to me that sexism is at the root.

it's quite common to be told that an inner gender is personal and difficult to define. The problem is, that even the people who have one say the same thing.

For something that's so important, that occupies their minds almost constantly, and who must have a unrelenting internal monologue about it, they are singularly unable to give you a single word to describe any of it, that doesn't completely rely on stereotypes.

If you're serious about wanting to find out more, ask any trans person to describe what they think makes them the opposite sex.

What is even dafter, is that this internal feeling that no one can describe, that not everyone has, that can change weekly, or even daily, or can stop entirely, is simultaneously so relevant and important that it trumps biological sex when making laws, recording data, and segregating the sexes!

I could give numberous examples of the sexism underpinning transgenderism, but even the very next thread I looked at after this was yet another example.

The retrospective 'transing' of powerful women in history, because if they behave in a stereotypical male way, they must be men, right? Nothing to do with their internal feelings whatsoever.

Erasing women in history, the arts, etc, has been done for so long, that people genuinely think there weren't any. But taking women like Elizabeth I or Joan of Arc, and making out they weren't actually women because they 'acted like men'' by ruling and going to war? It doesn't get more misogynistic.

How would it do that? ‘Relevant woman’ is defined in such a way that, even if it became ‘relevant person’, and all other references to woman were replaced with person, it would only catch individuals who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer or undergone a smear test.

I was being a little facetious, the law was written in Ireland, to investigate deaths of women (passed and future) who's cancer was missed by failures in the screening process.
Using the word person (twice) to account for the women and men who were given legal rights with the Act expands the "statistical person" to include both female and male people.

the winter soldier
I don't think people should be 'forced' to do anything, I think people can choose how they want to act (or speak) but, rightly or wrongly, recognise that there could be consequences for that action or behaviour.

What consequence should flow from refusing to mis-sex someone?

The UK Courts have only recently rolled back a rule which attempted to force a woman who was assaulted by a male to mis-sex the male.
This is a form of "approved" perjury.
As a "punishment" for that witness testomony, the Judge apparently stated on record that the sentencing of her attacker took account of her refusal and as a consequence / in compensation to the male the punishment was reduced.

Where should society draw the line?
In prisons should refusing to use words be disciplined?
Is sacking someone for refusing to use pronouns, outside work, in a social situation; in work, where is the line?

Thanks Datum, yes I've had a quick read of that thread, not caught up yet been out today. Seems a little weird to say if an historical woman did something a little bit 'manly' what - they were strong and took no sh*t?! They therefore must have been a man?! I don't think so. I would hope the author had some sort of evidence for their claims if they've published this academically, more reading to look up!!

SolasAnla I'm only aware of the High Court ruling to overturn the tribunal that said it was fair to sack a woman for stating people couldn't change biological sex. And in the ruling saying gender critical views were protected. I'm paraphrasing from memory sorry if I've got it slightly wrong, but if I'm remembering correctly I think what the high court said was right. Do you have a link for the other case I'll have a read

There is no evidence to prove that women who are strong, go to war, or rule must be men, because that is the prerogative of males and no woman can do it.

It's sexism.

No I was thinking more like actual evidence as in e.g. Queen Elizabeth I herself had written something to make them think that, rather than what's probably made up drivel

Elizabeth was as subject to the sexism of the day, just as we are.

She said "'I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."

I'm sure you agree that doesn't sound like she thinks she's actually a man.

No woman is actually a man.

The court rules are below
www.judiciary.uk/publications/crown-court-compendium-published/

The case happened but only for illustration.
The question is where should society begin to apply consequences for not reorganising speech to match a listeners expectation?

That would depend on the circumstances, I would expect society to comply with law and not reorganising speech patterns is not illegal as such, so one would need to look at other factors such as Ts&Cs of websites eg Twitter and Facebook (rightly or wrongly their platform their rules) and in work, polices such as Code of Conduct or Bullying and Harassment policies. Note I'm not suggesting anyone here would be bullying someone or would fall foul of any such policy. Outside of work, presumably not much unless the workplace had a 'bringing the workplace into disrepute' clause. And that's subjective. The final consequence I suppose might be other people's opinions of you inside or outside of work, but what people think of you doesn't really matter in the end if you are doing something you feel strongly about.