It's language isn't it

[CaptainWarbeck]

After listening to the Witch Trials podcast, I've been trying to get my head in the space of trans activists. I am trying to see their point of view and find any common ground, in the spirit of checking your own beliefs.

So essentially what I can see is that it boils down to the use of language first and foremost.

If you say 'woman' and by that you mean 'feeling feminine, feeling that many female stereotypes are more your thing, rejecting masculine things', then feminists saying 'you're not a woman' WOULD be hurtful and also 'denying that you exist' right?

Because you are saying you're all of those things, and someone is telling you that you are not. And they're personal things that no one else can really see - so I understand how it would feel rude and invalidating for a feminist to tell you you're not experiencing them.

And if by identifying as a 'woman' (also read nonbinary, asexual etc) in this sense means that you feel you fit into the world better and feel more accepted generally because people make less stereotypical assumptions about you, then that would be helpful, right?

And if feminists say 'no you can't do that - because of biology you are not a woman' - that would feel reductive, and like you were being put back into the box you're trying to escape from I imagine.

The issue is that when each side uses 'woman' we mean entirely different things. Defining the language we're using in order to have a conversation is essential. We're talking at cross purposes.

And the other thing which is impossible to fix but which would help enormously is waving a magic wand and eradicating gender stereotypes. There's no need for 'gender' if you can present/dress/behave however you want regardless of sex.

That's my best understanding right now. I think feminist rhetoric does hurt trans feelings. The issue is that following trans ideology saves hurt feelings, but has far worse consequences for biological women. No one really wins here. That is unless society (patriarchy) miraculously becomes more accepting of gay, lesbian and gender nonconforming people.

I totally agree that it’s not complex - nobody can change sex. There are two sexes. That’s it. A three year old can grasp this simple fact.

I have however been told on several occasions by people who believe that men can be women that it’s very complex. I’m very open to trying to understand the complexity they refer to as I have a pretty sound ability to grasp arguments but nope, they won’t elaborate 🤷‍♀️ Pre-pubescent children can make irreversible decisions about taking puberty blockers, though, according to the believers (because they can grasp the complexities much better than an adult) 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️

And the “genderbread” figure has no place in schools not only because it’s promoting genderist ideology but because from a purely educational point of view, it’s meaningless. The design itself is also very babyish and insults the intelligence of anyone aged 12 or over so yes, it needs to go.

They say it's complex because they refuse to answer simple questions, because none of it makes sense.

The question I mentioned earlier is a classic.

"If your children think they can choose whether they want to be a boy or a girl, what do they think a boy is and what do they think a girl is?"

No one can answer.

In order to claim that a male person can be have the gender of woman if they have a female gender identity which does not match their biological sex, someone must be able to answer the following questions:

• what is a man?
• what is a woman?
• what is gender?
• what is a gender identity?
• what do male people whose gender is woman have in common with female people?

As well as a few extras, such as:

• what rights do trans people not have that everyone else has?
• how is your gender identity relevant to other people?
• how is their gender identity relevant to things like competitive sport?
• where there is a conflict of rights, why should trans people take priority?

They can't answer any of these questions, but it's not because the answers are complex. The answers are actually simple.

• a man is an adult male human
• a woman is an adult female human
• gender is socially constructed stereotypes
• gender identity is a subjective and indefinable feeling that some people have
• nothing
• none
• it isn't
• it isn't
• they shouldn't

Unfortunately the simple answers don't get them what they want, so they pretend the questions are too complex to answer.

RosaBonheur - Exactly. That's one the reasons Helen Joyce is brilliant when talking about this. I remember she described TWAW as a circular definition (I had to look that up) but basically it's one that relies on us already understanding the actual meaning of something.

So, someone claiming to identify as a woman already knows what an actual woman is in order to claim some sort of affinity with that. Otherwise it makes no sense. That's why saying 'a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' is such bullshit, because it makes no sense. It's not a definition of anything. Definitions rely on us understanding the characteristics that are specific to that thing, otherwise they don't hold up.

A lamp is anything that identifies as a lamp. Tells you nothing about what a lamp is - and also exposes the fact that if you believed that, you would have to first have an understand of what a lamp actually is in order to compare.

Sorry I'm prob not explaining it great but it's basically all bullshit and falls apart once you apply logic.

They also say it’s complex because they want to shut you down. They’re implying that you don’t have the intellectual ability or capacity for magical thinking to grasp the elusive complexities of being able to change sex.

But yes @RosaBonheur it’s very very simple.

No, it makes perfect sense.

It's one of the things that annoys me so much about Keir Starmer. He's a lawyer. A very good one. He used to be the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lawyers work with definitions all the time. Pretty much all contracts start with a list of definitions to make sure that everyone understands the key terms used in the contract to mean exactly the same thing.

For example:

"A Business Day is any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday in England."

Legislation is also full of definitions. Obviously you can't define every word you use, but the important ones, and especially any word which is being used in a different sense to its usual meaning.

Male and female are words for biological sex. This is true in all animals, not just humans. They are words specifically relating to your reproductive role in your species.

The Gender Recognition Act, however, refers to male and female as genders, but doesn't define male, female or gender.

What does this mean???

It is total nonsense.

And rather than saying, "Hmm, the Gender Recognition Act is unworkable nonsense which could do with reforming, starting by putting some actual definitions in it," Keir Starmer is going, "Trans women are women because they identify as women."

He knows that's not an explanation. He knows it wouldn't be a workable definition in any contract or piece of legislation. He knows! But he doesn't care.

How ironic that the people who bang on about being inclusive morning, noon and night want to reorganise society according to an ideology that only they and their allies understand because everyone else is too stupid.

They don't understand it. If they understood it, they could explain it. They can't and they don't.

Oh of course.

But they would have us believe that they understand it and we would too if only we were intelligent enough.

Back when I had DS1 in 2012 the attachment parenting groups I was in it was popular to go for gender neutral toys and clothes to combat gender stereotypes. But more along the lines of boys and girls can like any colour/character/hobbies/careers. There was a bit more status related to having sensitive boys or STEM loving girls, maybe but it wasn't about denying their biological sex.

I remember seeing a viral video when my son was little that was about parents who had accepted their young 'trans' child. It was presented as a loving, accepting thing, though a bit confusing because it did seem to be based on their child being into "girls" toys/dressing up and mixing pronouns at an age children are just learning to use them.

But I guess I thought they or their child's doctor knew somehow.

I think that's one of the fundamental realisations you come to if you are gender critical - that adults (both parents and HCPs) are wrongly assuming that just because some adult trans people talk about knowing at a young age, that ALL kids (or adolescents) who are non gender conforming will grow up to be trans people and so the right thing to do is to accept that and get them early 'treatment'.

When you realise the evidence is this isn't true and reflect on our own experiences as perhaps gender non-confoming childhoods as Jo Marchs, George (Georgina) Kirrins, and how as adult women, it doesn't make us less female. This error seems catastrophic.

I think the acceptance thing comes a lot from the teaming of T with LGB because these groups were often left wing, LGB accepting etc. So that, despite the obvious clash between the girls can do anything boys can do (and vica versa) and diagnosing kids as trans based on their interests these groups have been captured.

I wonder if things will change as our group of kids reach teenagehood and adult hood though. If the generation of kids who grew up under the very rigid 2000s marketing of strict segregation of blue and pink to the extent that there were pink globes for girls have found gender to be highly salient. Then maybe the kids who have grown up under the more gender neutral but biological reality- let toys be toys/let clothes be clothes era will be more resistant to gender woo. A brief respite before the kids who've grown up in the gender/sex confusion era who think they can choose which puberty they will go through 😬

I think another facto not yet discussed much on this thread, is the influence of gaming and social media where there is a sense of being able to control people's perceptions of your avatar/persona because they only know what you tell them/make public online. They are who they say they are. I think the Witch Trials podcast series or maybe Kathleen Stock's book touched on this role playing fiction people are able to play. But that breaks down in real life. In the past your character was more formed by a reputation you built in personal interactions over time. With more freedom to change and grow as you aged.

With social media, your opinion on a drunken night out 7 years ago that is no longer right think can be surfaced by search and you face the potential public shaming of a huge tribe of strangers.