Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

How gender believers sabotage conversation and debate so their views won’t be challenged

199 replies

TerfLady · 28/04/2023 18:07

Hi there!

I tried to make the title as non-inflammatory as possible but I don’t think that’s fully possible with this topic but I saw a user on another thread make some really insightful observations that I couldn’t ignore about how woke people tend to shut down conversations and debates so they don’t have to have to challenge their own views and I thought it was really interesting!

If you want to get into this thread you might want to strap in because I’m going to get a tad long winded here. Sorry in advance. I thought about doing a TLDR but I don’t tuning it would work for this thread.

If you want to see the comment @Helleofabore replied to @cherryyoga on page 23 talking about her experience being a reformed liberal if you click on this link and how they handled arguments. Sorry I hope you both don’t mind me tagging you.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794270-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith?page=23&reply=125778813

Anyways CherryYoga discussed in bullet points how she was conditioned to handle arguments in the following ways:

-Assume their privilege
-Name call and denounce
-Removed the context (This is the part where they sabotage the conversation/debate so it can’t happen
-Stonewall (anyone whose ever tried to debate a woke liberal I think has experienced being blocked. It’s actually meme worthy at this point.)

Now she goes into this list a lot deeper so I recommend you read her comment because it would take a lot of space here!

I find this pattern extremely familiar and interesting. If we know this pattern it definitely looks from the outside like they just don’t want to talk to you once they discover that you have an opinion they don’t like. Yet there were several people like this expressing their frustration that they could not have a conversation while knowingly or unknowingly sabotaging the conversation. Why is that?

Because you might not know that I’m also an ex liberal and I did exactly word for word what CherryYoga described and I’m now on the other side scratching my head. I remember the frustration thinking the “alt right” just didn’t care. Feeling defeated and thinking conversation just wasn’t possible and then coming out on the other side asking myself why I ever thought that. 😧🧐

The conversation was only impossible because I made it impossible because I couldn’t accept their ideas because I saw them as an attack on vulnerable people. But it turns out that was far from the truth.

I wonder if there are other reformed woke people that wanted to share their experiences if they had arguments or debated this way? Is there a way we can reach them gently without surrendering our values?

Or is it better to just save our breath for the people that are ready to listen?

What are good strategies for poking holes in their “argument” strategies if we feel we must debate them?

Page 23 | Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith | Mumsnet

Hello. This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id. I welcome those wit...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794270-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith?page=23&reply=125778813

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
JussathoB · 30/04/2023 21:31

SpicyMoth · 30/04/2023 20:00

"If you're referring to the ability to change ones chromosomes, all trans people understand they cannot accomplish that. Yet if your hormones, genitalia, physical body, and breasts are all physically different, whether or not your chromosomes really matter is an open question."

Can you rephrase this? Is it pro-TRA or gender critical? Sorry I’m not understanding the intent?"

@TerfLady I will attempt to!

I was the first comment/question from a GC standpoint, it was on a ContraPoints video for context, the Witch Trials one.
The response was from someone who I assume from either a TRA/ally/trans person.
My best guess at what they mean would be that if they look like a woman (They got breast implants and had genitalia altered), sound like a woman, act like a woman, say they're a woman, they're a woman, and breaking it down into a person's chromosomes and whether they matter is splitting hairs.

  • Unsure what they mean by "physical body" in that context aside from fat distribution at a stretch tbh? But that doesn't strike me as approaching their point in good faith to say that, though maybe I'm wrong there!

I would assume had the replier continued to engage with me, that they likely would've then gone on to say something about people being born with extra or mismatched chromosomes and bringing in intersex people (I forget the mumsnet term for haywire/mismatched chromosomes/genital anomalies, I think there's a G and a D in it somewhere? Apologies, it's that time of the month and the brain fog is making itself known today apparently😭)

Well I think the question is … if someone has either ovaries or tested, regardless of whether outward signs of their body and genitalia look either typically female or male or not, do those ovaries or testes influence the way the persons brain functions or ‘feels’ itself to be female or male? Or does it not influence the sense of self?

NickCaveisnotaBadSeed · 30/04/2023 21:35

SpicyMoth · 30/04/2023 20:00

"If you're referring to the ability to change ones chromosomes, all trans people understand they cannot accomplish that. Yet if your hormones, genitalia, physical body, and breasts are all physically different, whether or not your chromosomes really matter is an open question."

Can you rephrase this? Is it pro-TRA or gender critical? Sorry I’m not understanding the intent?"

@TerfLady I will attempt to!

I was the first comment/question from a GC standpoint, it was on a ContraPoints video for context, the Witch Trials one.
The response was from someone who I assume from either a TRA/ally/trans person.
My best guess at what they mean would be that if they look like a woman (They got breast implants and had genitalia altered), sound like a woman, act like a woman, say they're a woman, they're a woman, and breaking it down into a person's chromosomes and whether they matter is splitting hairs.

  • Unsure what they mean by "physical body" in that context aside from fat distribution at a stretch tbh? But that doesn't strike me as approaching their point in good faith to say that, though maybe I'm wrong there!

I would assume had the replier continued to engage with me, that they likely would've then gone on to say something about people being born with extra or mismatched chromosomes and bringing in intersex people (I forget the mumsnet term for haywire/mismatched chromosomes/genital anomalies, I think there's a G and a D in it somewhere? Apologies, it's that time of the month and the brain fog is making itself known today apparently😭)

We had a poster, a male with trans identity, on a thread in the past year or so use the argument that surgeries and hormones got them to around 3/4 of the way to being just like a biological female, so therefore they considered they were there enough to say they had indeed changed sex.

It didn’t matter that it was all replication, even the hormones are synthesized. They had made enough of the physical changes. They tried the ‘infertile’ female with XY chromosomes argument.

SpicyMoth · 30/04/2023 21:54

That was so eloquently written @FlirtsWithRhinos , thank you for your insight I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and felt it defines "woman" in probably the best way I've seen.

"I found it telling that you said "are all physically different" rather than "female"."

This was an amazing point that I hadn't noticed myself and is super interesting to think more about!

nilsmousehammer · 30/04/2023 22:05

And yet the (carefully lit, carefully staged, often photoshopped) images of the 'you can't really tell' ones and the ones with huge amounts of physical transition are leverage for the likes of Isla Bryson to put on a pair of leggings, walk in and not be challenged. For a bloke in a beard with no sign of transition whatsoever to walk into a women's space and invoke the protections of 'I'm a woman'.

This does not work for women. The endless wangling is intended to harm women and suppress their boundaries. It's all about male rights and access.

The only answer is no. Women's spaces for women, born women, and third spaces provided for those who do not want to be the sex they are, or who are making whatever degree of change to their bodies in their appearance. Having just watched yet another video of screaming, violent lunatics assaulting a woman in a public space, my interest is in protecting women.

JanesLittleGirl · 30/04/2023 22:18

Boiledbeetle · 30/04/2023 20:56

I'm not religious, but i d be more willing to accept nature has a spirit, mainly because nature is amazing.

Who needs purity spirals when you can have nature spirals!

(And yes this is a sneaky way of placemarking as my heads not up for the debate aspect of this today! But it's an interesting read!)

Gotta love nature's spirals.

BonfireLady · 30/04/2023 22:24

@SpicyMoth and @FlirtsWithRhinos I thought the same about the eloquence of the description of a woman.

My viewpoint is that I don't have a gender identity but I'm a biological woman, so I do appreciate that I'm unlikely to disagree with it.

One of the things I liked about it was that it didn't seem to be disrespectful to transwomen. Easy for me to say though as I'm not a transwoman.

TerfLady · 30/04/2023 22:27

A little off topic but I once broke a liberal who argued that the only difference between men and women was their genitals and everything wide was a social construct and gender expression should be abolished. I turned them gender critical by asking them if a natal woman could become a trans woman or it a natal man could become a trans man. Although I have yet to repeat this with someone else. Perhaps something else had already been slowly chipping away at their perception of things the same way it had with me? Lol They were mad at me for a few months but came back around later. Lulz

OP posts:
BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 30/04/2023 22:57

Re proportions of people with DSDs, it's not an entirely simple number because studies don't agree on exactly what they are counting.

The most generous, coming up with a figure of 1.7%, counted pretty much every possible condition that affects the reproductive system - including things that normally nobody would consider to be a DSD (from memory, I think even PCOS may have been included). Others take an extremly strict definition that excludes chromosomal conditions like Kleinfelter and Turner syndromes that most would consider to be DSDs. If you consider only things that cause a visible difference (most of which would not be a significant enough difference to cause incorrect 'assignment at birth') then it's around 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births.

If you're referring to the ability to change ones chromosomes, all trans people understand they cannot accomplish that. Yet if your hormones, genitalia, physical body, and breasts are all physically different, whether or not your chromosomes really matter is an open question."

As @FlirtsWithRhinos says, it can't be done. You could - at a stretch - argue that the chromosomes in themselves don't matter. But those chromosomes don't only determine genitals and secondary sexual characteristics. They are in every part of the body, and they affect it all. You can have surgery to reshape some of the visible differences in the shape of skull - but you can't change the density and thickness of the whole thing. You can't change the proportions of fast and slow switch fibres in all your muscles, alter the size of your heart, or remove the sex markers in your retina.

A very interesting discovery during covid was that oestrogen seemed to have a protective effect for women who were infected. So they tried giving it to men. Didn't help - because the way the immune system reacts to oestrogen is not the same in men as it is in women. There is no surgery, tablet or patch to change that sort of cellular-level response.

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 00:05

SinnerBoy · 30/04/2023 12:20

@FriendofJoanne

I've read your blog with interest and have encountered most of the positions and read many of the articles, which you linked to. I haven't read Judith Butler's book, although I have seen some of her articles.

I was struck that an intelligent and articulate person could write this - without understanding the logical failure.

How can something dimorphic have a multiplicity of traits? It makes no sense.

(Hopefully it'll post this time, I think that the text I copied from your blog wasn't MN friendly...)

Thank you for taking the time to read my blog and feedback. Which bit are you referring to? I’ve put Tra arguments in their own words but these are not my beliefs- doesn’t that come across? (I don’t believe in Gender Identity)

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 00:07

Ive not read Judith Butler either too much word salad! Just read and watched stuff critiquing her and an article she wrote

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 00:46

Excellent link thank you he puts the contradictions in the Tra arguments very clearly. Pp was spot on with the ‘cherry picking’ - it isn’t coherent because as soon as you rebut one argument they try something else.

They really really want it to be true (that twaw) and I think some of them have truly convinced themselves that their arguments hold water and they really are women.

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 01:08

That excellent link comment was to @TerfLady for the video. I didn’t realise the reply button doesn’t tag the poster you’re replying to.

Ive enjoyed reading this thread - finally caught up. Re DSDs & biological sex I recommend reading Clare Graham’s blog https://mrkhvoice.com/index.php/2019/05/12/statistics-and-semantics-is-intersex-as-common-as-red-heads/

or Colin Wright and Emma Hilton

I’ve laid the Tra arguments as I’ve seen them on a blog post then added links that rebut them - just trying to understand their arguments

I think a big problem is the fact that transwoman is such a broad category covering straight men who sometimes cross dress, usually for a sexual thrill to gay feminine men like Blair White who really do pass (although still with a penis) and everything in between including porn addled incels who want to be ‘bimbos’

Statistics and Semantics: Is Intersex “as common as red heads”?

Today we’re going to talk statistics and semantics. I’m going to do so via the medium of one of social media’s favourite stats 1.7% (aka “intersex is as common as red heads.”). …

https://mrkhvoice.com/index.php/2019/05/12/statistics-and-semantics-is-intersex-as-common-as-red-heads/

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 01:22

@SinnerBoy oh yes just realised the bit you’re referring to by Julia Serano - how do they get so lauded for their writing when in clearly makes no sense!

It’s like when you tell a child their work is good because you don’t want to crush their spirit - maybe Academia on a massive scale are so worried about most-oppressed-vulnerable-high-risk-of-suicide that they just pander to them.

Or maybe it’s because the American uni’s are funded by billionaire Tra like the Rothblatts and Arcus (I don’t know this, I’m just wondering)

ps I thought you were referring to me as intelligent and articulate, then I realised you were commenting on JSs words 😭

SinnerBoy · 01/05/2023 01:37

FriendofJoanne · Today 00:05

Oh sorry, I thought it was Butler, my mistake!

I was trying to post the copied text, but it was highlighted in beige and in italics. It kept falling and I tried several times.

As far as I understand it, many of the "philosophies" on the MRA side are riddled with contradictions, which, when pointed out, provoke fury and accusations of transphobia.

SinnerBoy · 01/05/2023 01:40

BTW, you do seem to be intelligent and articulate.

I was commenting that the author you quoted is too - I think - but able to tie themselves up in a Gordian Knot of contradictory statements and all within a single sentence!

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 01:43

To steel man respond to your criticism:

Genitals are dimorphic because there are 2 types - penis or vagina & vulva but these two types come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, colour etc so the dimorphism types have a multiplicity of traits.

Same with secondary sex characteristics.

Gonads - not so sure how Tra might respond - maybe the multitude of traits could refer to functionality - if they work or not, or work a bit but not effectively?

Chromosomes - I don’t know how JS can say these are dimorphic with multiple traits. I thought they were supposed to be a spectrum to fit the sex denialism of Tra. If I was JS I’d probably say while they are Xx Xy for the majority of people there are also multiple other permutations 🤷‍♀️

(I think for some trans people they accept the sex binary because otherwise what would they be transing to and from, but they’ve changed the argument to say I’m female and was all along, because of this unprovable incontestable gender identity.)

Steel man again - if you deny it exists that proves it’s existence because that means your cis and if you’re cis you have privilege and I’m oppressed by you. You can’t understand my lived experience and have no right to comment on it.

If you do not affirm me as my true self you are oppressing me, you are denying my existence and committing genocide! Transphobe!

(block report encourage pile on etc)

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 01:47

Sorry for bad grammar and typos to any grammar pedants reading! Typing on phone with one finger and a cast on my arm!

Thank you @SinnerBoy but I feel I fished for that compliment, I’ll take it though 😁

SinnerBoy · 01/05/2023 01:58

My pleasure.

Nellodee · 01/05/2023 06:33

I think there is a slightly different argument that hinges on “be kind” rather than “twaw” as its central tenet.
Imagine a world where everyone was encouraged to become their true inner self, to live authentically. In this world, everyone accepted each other for who they said they were. Yes, we are the actors in the theatre, but isn’t it better to be acting a beautiful, fulfilling role, rather than to just accept what nature arbitrarily decided for us?
In this world, there us no such thing as homophobia, or transphobia, or bigotry of any kind. We’re all must learn to accept others and work towards this world.
Yes, there will be bad actors, but they will exist whether or not the rest of us aim for this utopia or not. If we lived in this world, then we could deal with the small amount of people who commit crimes. The people who are holding us back from this world are not the criminals, who will always exist, but the criticals, who could accept this world view, but don’t.
Sports are not very important, certainly not when you compare them to this idea of everyone in the world loving and accepting each other. Prisons are important, but there is no reason to consider women to be more vulnerable than transwomen. Toilets are absolutely essential to show people that we truly do accept them for who they say they are - it is how we demonstrate that full acceptance.

BonfireLady · 01/05/2023 07:17

Great point @Nellodee and brilliantly articulated in steel man style. The only reason I'm sure you are writing in that style (rather than it being your genuine viewpoint) is that I've just come from another thread where I was also responding to a great point that you made 😁

So if a belief in gender identity is expressed in the statement that TWAW and that you can easily demonstrate kindness by accepting transwomen in all spaces (and it's very liberating to be free of gender stereotypes), it's an incredibly attractive belief.

FriendofJoanne · 01/05/2023 07:44

@Nellodee it’s a very idealistic vision and I absolutely think that is what motivates some of the younger generation. Sadly the older and wiser (and more cynical) of us know this dream is in unachievable.

Communism was a wonderful utopian dream which has failed more than once as the people (usually men) with less conscience and more greed will ride rough shod over the idealists using this utopian dream to advance themselves.

It is women who will primarily pay the price and we are already seeing this in prisons, hostels, hospitals and changing rooms.

There is profit to be made by convincing children and vulnerable adults they can change their heathy bodies through drugs, hormones and surgery.

I (and many other women) propose a different utopian future, one in which men and women are valued equally and allowed to live free from gendered expectations.

Work that has been traditionally seen as ‘women’s’ ie caring, teaching etc is valued and rewarded as well as money making work. This will take economic reform and social reform on things which devalue and dehumanise women such as pornography and prostitution. Children are taught the value of healthy relationships and sexual expression within those relationships rather than being taught not to ‘kink shame’. This utopia is not a return to a prudish Victorian world but one that does not value sexual expression above and separate from positive relationships.

The utopia you describe is the ultimate capitalist dream with the body as the product. It is ripe for exploitation by the unscrupulous (already happening)

Let’s work together to get men and women equality and acceptance for gender non-conformity without changing bodies for cosmetic reasons. That will truly be a world of love and acceptance.

(I could go on but I realise you may have been steel manning so I’m preaching to the converted!)

mauvish · 01/05/2023 10:00

Thank you everyone for such an interesting thread.

I may have got a little confused at some point so forgive me if I'm repeating someone's else wise words! Anyway, how would clever folk counteract this argument? (Personally my response is along the lines of "pfffttt, dream on!" but you are better debaters than I am!)

"As as TW or indeed a TRA, I am more woman than any of you unthinking cis women. I've had to think, consider, work through my beliefs and emotions to get to where I am, and that gives me the absolute right and self knowledge to state that I am a woman - compared to you cis women who can't even explain why you think you're a woman. I've thought about it a lot and I KNOW I am, You haven't thought about it all. So I am clearly more woman than you REGARDLESS of my chromosomes/appearance (etc etc)"

mauvish · 01/05/2023 10:12

Also just wanted to add in a word about sex chromosomes, just in case the facts about them are bent in a debate with a TW/TRA:

We (almost) all have 46 pairs of chromosomes, plus the vast majority of us have a pair of sex chromosomes -- XX if you're female, XY if you're male (using female/male in the biological, chromosomal sense of course!). We all know that.

Yes, it's true that not all people fit these configurations but there are a couple of certain facts:

  1. You HAVE to have at least one X chromosome. Conditions where an embryo has only a Y chromosome and no X to balance, are incompatible with life. Therefore every human on this planet has at least one X chromosome.
  2. No matter how many X chromosomes you have, the presence of a single Y chromosome shifts the embryo into male development.

So you can have just one X chromosome, no Y (X0) = Turner's syndrome, female.
Oryou could have 2 (or more) X chromosomes plus a Y (XXY, other multiples of X are possible) = Klinefelter's syndrome, male.
Or indeed multiples of Y eg XYY - male.
Or multiples of X eg XXX - female.

There's a clear pattern and gender ideology is never going to change that or find exceptions that "prove the rule".

Apologies to anyone who feels I'm trying to give an egg-sucking lesson here. I have always found genetics fascinating (and it would be high on my list of career choices if I were a lot younger!!)

FlirtsWithRhinos · 01/05/2023 10:41

mauvish · 01/05/2023 10:00

Thank you everyone for such an interesting thread.

I may have got a little confused at some point so forgive me if I'm repeating someone's else wise words! Anyway, how would clever folk counteract this argument? (Personally my response is along the lines of "pfffttt, dream on!" but you are better debaters than I am!)

"As as TW or indeed a TRA, I am more woman than any of you unthinking cis women. I've had to think, consider, work through my beliefs and emotions to get to where I am, and that gives me the absolute right and self knowledge to state that I am a woman - compared to you cis women who can't even explain why you think you're a woman. I've thought about it a lot and I KNOW I am, You haven't thought about it all. So I am clearly more woman than you REGARDLESS of my chromosomes/appearance (etc etc)"

I think, like so much (maybe everything) in this struggle, it comes down to this:

Everything you (the TW/TRA making this point) feel is true and valid.

However, it is not interchangeable with the fact of having a female body.

Your error is not in your understanding of yourself, it's in your assumption that this thing you feel, and the way it shapes your life, is interchangeable with the fact of my body and how it shapes my life.

So I'm not going to argue about which of us has the "true" understanding of and definition of "woman" because that's not the point.

I am simply going to say this thing you experience because you identify as a woman, and the thing I experience because I have a female body, are not the same thing. Both are valid, but they are different.

They are not the same thing so they should not have the same name. You cannot presume to speak for me and the truth of my existence simply because of the coicidence (or appropriation) of the historic name for my sex now being the name for your mental self-image.

You have no moral right to claim rights, protections, opportunities and spaces that were set up for "women" when woman meant adult human female are now yours by right when you reject the definition of womanhood under which, and for whom, they were created in the first place.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 01/05/2023 11:16

@Nellodee

Yep, I've seen that point made a lot of times on this board (I suspect by the same person name-changing)

In this world, there us no such thing as homophobia, or transphobia, or bigotry of any kind. We’re all must learn to accept others and work towards this world.
Yes, there will be bad actors, but they will exist whether or not the rest of us aim for this utopia or not. If we lived in this world, then we could deal with the small amount of people who commit crimes. The people who are holding us back from this world are not the criminals, who will always exist, but the criticals, who could accept this world view, but don’t.

For me, the reponse to this is:

Yes, I agree with your vision of how the world should be and I would be happy to work towards it. However, I can't agree with your assertion that all we need to do is to throw away the existing protections and everything will be ok.

It is unavoidably true that today, our established social practices and structures still disempower female people.

Research still shows that both sexes allow male people to talk over female, to dominate their time, that female people are socially expected to take on more of the unpaid support and care or pastoral roles in the home and at work, that childcare falls more to female people, that male voices are given more authority, that male sexuality and sexual aggression is tactily accepted, that working norms do not mesh with the school day, that violent and sexual violence is overwhelmingly committed by male people.

In this context, to remove the spaces, opportunies and protections that are intended to counteract the "default male" social setup in the misguided belief that this moves society towards equality and acceptance is in practice to push the cost and risk disproportionately onto female people, a group already magrinalised and disempowered.

Put simply, you will be putting the costs on female people while the benfits accrue to male.

It's telling I think that these debates so often focus on what women (female people) need to give up, what they need to accept, and how they need to change to bring about your social vision rather than what changes male people need to make. To quote the Usual Suspects, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist". We are so inured to male behaviour, so used to seeing Male as the default and Female as the difference, that it's as if our brains simply skip past the men in the middle of society and we look only to how we can restructure our ideas of female to solve the problems of men that don't fit the patriachy's mould.

Rather than starting by throwing away everything female people have fought for, throwing away even the right to our own name and our own voice, in order to include male people who feel they need what we have to be themsleves, why not start by challenging male people to do better? Why not start by recognising that these male people who feel they cannot be men as society defines manhood need a newer, better ways to be male and championing and envisioning that?

If we want to reach a place where body sex has little consequence and separation by sex is rarely, if ever, needed or wanted, why not start by creating those sexless spaces (physical and cultural) alongside today's existing provisions and put our effort into making them work, making them better options, until the single sex supports and provisions simply become irrelevant as no one wants to be there? Why, if this is so much better than what we have today, is it so important to destroy the protections we have first and force women into the new world whether they want it or not, whether they feel safe or not, whether it works for them or not?