Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

Actually, I think you'll find there are far worse since than overusing 'actual' or variants thereof. I speak as a hardened pedant of many years; 'actually' is one of the best words.

I'd disagree with citing government bodies' references to "honorable members" etc. as good evidence of good faith, though - that, to me, more often feels more like smug, ritualised hypocrisy - a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card laid down seconds before the insulting generalisation/dismissal that will follow a second later!

#cynical.

Thank you. 😀Actually, I find that actual is, in actuality, quite useful when effectively... er... actualised?

Excellent point well made Catiette, if I might add a third

3 It is considered (by some) legitimate for a transgender woman (i.e. a male) to be offended by being excluded from a homosexual woman's dating pool on the grounds of the TW's sex. It is not considered legitimate (by some) for a homosexual woman to be offended that people are not acting respectfully of her sexual orientation or the words she needs to describe and define it. Again this seems to be an area where women are expected to defer to those males' perception of reality.

@BonfireLady "I'm an advocate for single occupancy third spaces to supplement single-sex facilities (meaning biological sex) that are accessible to anyone who feels, or physically is, unable to use the single-sex facilities. That would include people with physical disabilities, hidden disabilities (e.g. autistic people who may get sensory overload) and any transgender person for whom going to a facility that is commensurate with their biological sex is distressing or makes them fearful. I can well imagine that a transwoman could easily have a fear of going in to men's toilets."

I agree I am in no way opposed to people spending more money on better toilets to help meet everyone's needs regardless of their beliefs.

I think they need to have floor to ceiling walls, and a proper lockable door. I would also propose that they should have a monitored emergency pull cord, a hand washing drying facilities, and a sanitary bin as a minimum. that they are spacious enough to take a pushchair in and (venue dependent) have a changing table / nappy bin.

Like the use the disabled loos argument but instead there are a whole bunch of such loos.

"Toilet provision should be designed and made available based on expected numbers e.g. if accessible toilets can now be used by others (in the UK hidden disabilities such as autism are now covered) then we need councils and planners to do their best to estimate needs and plan for the right number of toilets."

completely agree

Hi OP.

I didn't see your previous thread before it filled up and I'm sorry I don't have time to read through almost 1400 posts, so I've just read yours.

You say you want to discuss in good faith but I don't see much empathy in your posts for those women negatively affected by this.

You say you believe trans women are women and should be treated as women in all aspects, but you don't say why you believe trans women are women, or why that viewpoint should prevail over the belief that women are adult humans of the female biological sex.

People who were born male and have been convicted of sexual offences against women have come out as trans and then been housed in women's prisons where they have then gone on to rape and sexually assault female prisoners.

People who were born male and have had underwhelming sporting careers have have come out as trans and then been permitted to compete in women's sporting events, including at the Olympics. In some cases they have won and taken medals and prizes intended for female athletes.

What, if anything, would you say to the victims of these incidents?

For anyone who doubts this statement, the statement in bolds below is by James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance. James is listed as an author of the Scottish Prisons Policy -

‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

@MargotBamborough you are both right and wrong just a quick note that the OP of thread 1 is NOT the OP of thread 2 and the lovely @Catiette has made many insightful and nuanced posts.

Ah, thank you, @howdoesatoastermaketoast.

Now you mention it, there is a marked difference in tone between the two threads.

Hi @MargotBamborough (and thanks for your reply, Toaster!) I should have explained the context more clearly in my opening post - I thought of this and posted a quick update within the first 10 or so, but this will have been very easy to miss in, yes, wow, the 1400 or so posts and counting! As a relatively new poster, I'm on a steep FWR learning curve (eg. suspect I've been tagging - is that even the word?!) people far too enthusiastically since excitedly discovering how a short period in!)😅It's good to know people are still reading. I first discovered FWR in a long, lurky journey through a 1000-post thread that really opened my eyes to these issues, so know it takes a degree of commitment to read through retrospectively like that!

This is very clear. It is impossible to have this conversation because it is impossible to agree terms. The insistence from transactivists is that all discussions must start from the position “transwomen are women” but fundamentally, that is the discussion and if we start from that point, no discussion is possible.

Ok, I’m gonna try to limit myself to one post for today. I’m responding to this post because it was addressed to me and since there’s a lot on here I’d like to be able to talk about it more in depth, but I’ll also respond to the gist of some other posts on here too. I hope this isn’t breaking any mumsnet conventions, I am relatively new and this is the first time I’ve been involved in any meaty discussions on here. Usually by the time I get to a post and add my 2c, most people have moved on and the thread is basically dead.

First of all I want to address the fact that I have been asked to provide studies to back up a claim I made and so I will freely admit now that I do not have such studies. I did indeed do the thing where I saw a statistic on the internet which supported my worldview and I did not do any further investigating or fact checking but just accepted it at face value and assumed that others would as well. My bad. I’m sure I’m not alone in doing this and I think this is probably very common. So I think I will conclude by saying that if you don’t agree with my initial premise then it is perfectly understandable that you would arrive at a different conclusion. I think I prefer to take the approach of trying to explain my personal worldview as best as I can and how that shapes my personal opinion on these issues, trying to understand the worldview of others and how that has shaped their opinion on these issues, being open to the possibility that my mind may be changed but not having the goal of changing anyone’s mind. I think I would also like to make clear that I have no commitment to reading studies that are linked unless my own personal curiosity compels me to do so. I’m not interested in these studies per se, I’m more interested in how you (the general you, not the specific poster I’m responding to) interpret these studies and how that has affected your worldview and your opinions on these topics. That’s my intention for being here anyway, so I’ll probably ignore any calls for me to justify my worldview. I don’t have any power to impose my worldview on anyone here so I don’t think it’s really necessary for me to justify it.

okay wow, I really didn’t intend for that paragraph to be so long. Okay, onto this post.

So, thank you for this clarification, it does help me to understand how not believing in gender identity is a reasonable worldview to have even with the fact that gender dysphoria exists. (I’m going to refer to it as ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gendered soul’ because while it was initially useful to explain the concept to those who didn’t understand, it caries a religious connotation that I don’t personally agree with). So I’m going to accept for now that belief and non belief in gender identity are equally valid worldviews and that neither should have precedence over the other and see how that affects the conclusions I draw. (This is genuinely a shift in my worldview because up until now I had accepted gender identity as undeniable fact and was genuinely surprised a few days ago when I had to explain to people what it meant and that this is still a new concept to some people on this board, so please do bear with me while I explore the implications of this.)

so, in my worldview where gender identity exists, this doesn’t mean that therefore biological sex doesn’t exist. Gender identity and biological sex are two separate things that both exist. So I agree with you that the concept of biological sex should not be erased, and I don’t think that my world view does this. I agree that biological sex should still be a protected characteristic. I think it would not be unreasonable for gender identity to also be a protected characteristic, in the same way that religion is a protected characteristic. You don’t have to believe in it to agree that nobody should be discriminated against for believing in it.

so delving into sexual orientation, I do think that sexual orientation is a lot more complex than gay/lesbian and straight (I’m not really sure if that’s a commonly held belief or something that I need to explain further but I’ll try to keep it brief unless this is something people specifically want to discuss further). So, within my worldview where there is biological sex and there is gender identity and sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don’t, this would also affect sexual orientation in different ways. There could be a woman who is only attracted to biological females who calls herself a lesbian, and there could be a woman who is only attracted to those who identify as women who calls herself a lesbian, and I think both are equally valid and both should (and would) be protected under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and both should be free to talk about their sexual orientation as long as they’re not being disrespectful. So ‘I am a lesbian and I don’t want to date anyone with a penis’ is I think a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to say that any lesbian should feel perfectly free to say. ‘Lesbians don’t want to date anyone with a penis’ is less reasonable, because not all lesbians would agree with that, but I guess it depends on the context. Like, it’s different if someone with a large platform says it versus some random internet user on a message board. I don’t think anyone should be prevented from saying it but I think it’s reasonable that others may want to challenge it. And then finally something like ‘well, of course I won’t want to date anyone with an icky penis, those transes are disgusting to us lesbians’ I think would go in the same category as any other kind of hate speech and should be treated accordingly.

so specifically regarding the article you posted… I’m not sure how I feel about that one. I think I would place that in the same category as the whole wedding cake thing, where some businesses that provide wedding cakes don’t want to have to provide them for same sex weddings. I’m not sure where the law actually comes down on that, but I think I would take the view that business that provide a necessary service - a pharmacy or a doctor’s office or an insurance company - should not be able to discriminate, but businesses that offer a luxury service - wedding cakes or dating apps - should be allowed to select their target audience and then deal with the social consequences of that decision. That’s my initial gut feeling about it but I admit I haven’t explored it fully.

regarding bathrooms, this will probably be a very controversial view and I expect not many people will agree with me here, but I think public bathrooms should be treated as any public space, and so yes this does indeed mean that I think that men should be legally allowed enter and use a women’s bathroom - not just trans women, but men who identify as men - and that women should be legally allowed to enter and use a men’s bathroom. To be perfectly honest I’ve always assumed that this was the case, that sex segregation was a social convention and not a legal requirement. I remember a time when I was young and my mum used the men’s bathroom because the line to the women’s bathroom was really long and she really had to go, and it never occurred to me that she may have broken the law.

I do of course understand the need for privacy, but I think that in general where privacy is required, it should be privacy from all, not just privacy from the opposite sex. I am equally uncomfortable being naked in front of women I don’t know as in front of men I don’t know. When I am in the toilet cubicle, I have complete privacy. When I leave the cubicle to wash my hands in a communal hand washing area, a have no expectation of privacy because I am completely clothed. I’ve never really understood the need for privacy in this stage of the toileting process.

ok well I’m getting hungry for lunch so time to hit post and see where the discussion goes.

Thanks Spooky for your post. There is much common ground in your post, however there is also just as much to agree to disagree with to.

One thing I do disagree with is the taking of language and forceably changing it to mean the opposite. To me, this comes from queer theory M. Foucault with the post modernism ‘if I believe x is x, then it is’. That is for me another post though. There is a reason for annexing the established language for women, including the word ‘lesbian’ instead of creating a new word or even a variation of that word for use when a male person with a particular gender identity is attracted to a female person.

Or why wasn’t a ‘pan-sexual’ used, there are over 100 genders, why then have these male people forced the term lesbian to be redefined when that female person may be of a different gender?

Seems rather like forcing ‘binary’ concepts to fit them when they desire it, yet using their own philosophical belief, that is limiting. And it is therefore inconsistent.

Looks a bit too much like patriachy for me.

Things I've done in the toilets which I am not doing in front of men.
Washed my partners daughters pants in the sink and dried them on the hand drier
Washed my own bloody knickers in the sink and dried them on the drier
Washed bloody hands in the sink
Taken off my top and rinsed and dried under the drier
Comforted a distraught friend who was weeping buckets at work and needed time out in front of male colleagues
Comforted a friend who had just started her period when she thought she was pregnant
Held people back when a random woman with a buggy needed the loo but her child was having a moment and needed to stay strapped in but see their mother
Discussed symptoms of menopause in great detail
Hidden from someone who was always harassing me, asking every person entering if he had left yet.

Just a few off the top of my head.

Women and men use toilets differently because we have different needs.

”I did indeed do the thing where I saw a statistic on the internet which supported my worldview and I did not do any further investigating or fact checking but just accepted it at face value and assumed that others would as well.”

I despair that we are now in an era where there is so much information at our fingertips, yet we now have to be so wary of that information, Spooky. To be blunt, there is so much misinformation out there now that I rarely take anything on face value anymore. Not that I fact check everything, but if it is important and it is something that is forming a position on something as important as the rights of women and children, I DO look to orginal source and then make my own decisions.

Because I care about the welfare of several young people in my life with trans identities, I have looked further into such claims as the one you made. So, I am always interested in seeing the studies. Particularly if new ones have come out that I have missed. Hence my request to if you had seen something new.

Unfortunately, even organisations that are supposed to be evidence and fact based are perpetuating falsehoods, or using language that is so much stronger than the evidence presents. It does mean that comments such as ‘the vast majority of people who undergo transition report that it has greatly enhanced their quality of life compared to before they transitioned.’ is viewed as something to be evidenced. To be clear, that statement you used has been repeated here often and is regularly stated from organisations and influencers.

However, there is not the evidence to back it up. So, if becomes a very dangerous statement in that the repeating of it by organisations and media makes vulnerable people believe the evidence is out there. And unfortunately, it is just not the case.

Just a note though, it is usual that posters will post links and it is for everyone’s benefit so it may not be posted with the expectation that you, personally, will read it. Although, Spooky, I have to ask, do you feel uneasy in anyway knowing just how much of what has supported the formation of your opinion has been at best, over stated by organisations and people who should be held to a higher level of honesty ? At worst, misinformation that is harmful to vulnerable people?

When I started to realise this, I was horrified and felt manipulated.

I spent many days, often 2-3 times a week, where I had a stroller or pram jammed in the door because I had no one but myself to do shopping. And I didn’t need the change table so didn’t use the accessible toilet if there was one. That included at period time with flooding periods.

I have also had to take my wheelchair bound elderly mother to a normal cubicle when there was no accessible toilet available. Where I couldn’t leave her to remove the wheelchair to lock the door .

I, too, have washed clothing out, and at times had to unbutton shirts to get them dry from baby vomit, or leaking breasts.

And got dressed in work toilets for various reasons.

And cried there and comforted others. And hid there from men who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

There are many reasons that women do not want males in the toilet. I often think it must be nice to never have had to deal with just period flooding the number of times I have since being a teenager. I realise that I have very heavy periods compared to some people, but it certainly made me very aware of the need for single sex spaces. In fact, now in peri, I am on a menstrual leash.

However, the female toilets have never been used just to ‘pee’. I am always surprised when people either never realised this or never acknowledge it.

It goes back to another poster's (I think on the last thread?) assertation that they wouldn't undermine a source which supported a position or belief they held.

While 'undermine' was a deliberate word choice by that poster in order to indicate what they saw as an absurdity , I was surprised that they didn't challenge all sources as a matter of course, as many (most?) of the posters on here do. We've learned through experience that statements (even from sources which are on 'your side') need to be examined carefully in order to verify veracity.

The problem also with saying that people are generally happy is that you can't ask someone who died from necrotising fascitis or who committed suicide how happy they are with their transition. Which is why these ghouls in gender clinics are deliberately not doing any follow ups and just releasing people after their 'care' has come to an end. Richie Herron tells how he was just dropped when he said it hadn't helped him.

All people still on the books are going to say they are happy otherwise they will discontinue the treatment. Another 'its a feature not a bug' element of 'trans affirming care'.

I have also read back Deja’s posts, again. There was some interesting dynamics there.

The accusations of regular FWR posters twisting words, when in fact that Deja was doing just that. Taking words that were speaking generally as being directed at them for instance. Or treating clarifying queries as attempts to twist meanings. When it was sorting through to find what was being said.

While they seemed to use language that was dismissive to the needs of women and children, and of personal experiences. And often came across as emotive language while then making accusations such as repeated accusations of transphobia. Yet, were any posts deleted for transphobia?

I still think that some times, maybe too often, posters unused to the pretzeling of language that we have had to develop to keep from being banned in the past must find it tricky to understand that regular posters are quite used to the guidelines. Those of not making personal attacks, of not writing transphobic posts, and not dehumanising people or making negative generalisations. And as much as I resent that pretzeling of language, it has meant that actually ‘good faith’ is found here. thanks catiette, I have seen that definition before but it is a good reminder.

I also think that some posters use other social media platforms or read content that uses language that is emotionally manipulative, hyperbolic and full of cognitive distortions such as polarised language and concepts. Plus that is presenting misinformation as being fully evidenced and fact. Perhaps all that is then presented as only transphobic, ignorant or hateful people would disagree.

Either way, some posters become very used to that style of writing. They may or may not recognise the tactics that are used in that style of writing, but they have found it convincing and they use the phrases and the terminology plus the tactics in their own writing and explanations. Whether they intend to or not, that is the style they deliberately or not deliberately copy. We all do it to some extent.

Therefore, when some posters receive any pushback at all, they do fall back to believing that anyone who disagrees with anything they have said is transphobic, ignorant and hateful. Maybe it is a pre-conceived notion fed by reading people writing from a polarised persecutive. Not from reading people writing to seek to understand, to explore and to find solutions to areas where two groups rights conflict.

I also remember reading direct and often blunt posts on social media and here and thinking how I disagreed with such a firm stance. Then I started ‘educating’ myself thinking these women must be wrong, they are using such strong language. And then I realised it really was my own social conditioning that meant I had been inclined to judge that direct language as harsh and blunt. What they were saying was truthful and usually well evidenced.

Seeing Dr Stock lose her role was very shocking, considering her very careful way of framing things. It reinforced the fact that ‘no debate’ was still echoing loudly. And that unless words are nicely formed by women campaigning for their sex based rights, they are dismissed as mean. But then all words of disagreement are to be dismissed or silenced. While those extreme trans rights activists feel no compunction to think about what they say. You only have to look at the placards those protesting the women’s events carry to understand they are often completely wrong in what they think women believe or are saying.

They, those extreme activists, assume that they are righteous and can say it anyway they wish. After all, they are not the hateful ones, supposedly.

It may be confusing for posters (who are rarely extreme trans activists although a few are/have been and I don’t believe Deja is an extreme activist) to encounter people disagreeing, calling out misinformation and tactics. But it really helps to cut through all the sparple and tactics and be able to concentrate on just the discussion points.

I appreciate it's very old, but that petition is really interesting @NotHavingIt
I'd be interested to know more about it. I'm wondering if it's still actively (and slowly!) being pursued.

I'm aware of GAP (rearrange the anagram 😁) but there are many other voices who can drown these people's demands out. Especially with some of the more extreme examples coming to light in a viral way, such as the transwoman who recently posted on TikTok to promote gun violence and murder against anyone stopping transwomen using the women's toilets.

I agree wait. But then I have studied stats in relation to quantitative research. So I guess I do check most stuff because I know exactly how to manipulate it myself.

I think it always ends up on toilets at some point anyway in a general discussion, unless it's specifically about a topic like sports for example. To paraphrase/quote Arabella from above "everybody uses toilets", so it's a universal point of understanding.

Interestingly, I the response "no-one should have to share a space with someone wanking" differently. I saw it as empathetic rather than pitiful.

I didn't see any dismissal or ridicule of women's feelings (happy to be corrected on that) but I did see a defence of a viewpoint. We all defend our own viewpoint and everyone's style differs. I totally agree with @Catiette that language matters lots. That's why I wanted to look beyond the language and writing style to see what was being said. I would absolutely draw the line at someone using abusive language (I would scroll past and ignore) but I expect persuasive language, perhaps "manipulative". Nothing is going to gaslight me in to thinking that transwomen should be in women's spaces but I'm certainly interested in hearing viewpoints (not in defence of GAP, obviously) as to way someone thinks it's workable. If I don't listen to their viewpoint, I'm doing my own version of no debate.

The puropose of posting that link was not for you to sign the petition, but to highlight the fact that there are TW who are in favour of third spaces. Such as Fionne Orlander and Miranda Yardely.

I wonder if Deij will come back to day to congratulate the male cyclist who just won the women's Gila cycling race. Deijj, I imagine, would be one of those still saying " We need more research" - because when it comes down to it trans inclusion, including males in female spaces, is the dedicated goal.

Yep, I'm with you on all the essential attributes (floor to ceiling toilets, pull chord etc) of third option toilets. I don't think we'd need that many to make it workable, so I'm sure funds could be found.

I get where you are coming from with then" be kind", " good faith" position - but I suggest you are, perhaps, rather naively taking it too far. Most of us already know and understand very well what the radical trans agenda is - and also know it is ultimately futile to try to engage with it/or be overly tolerant.... page after page after page.

Short, reasonable, and to the point is my preferred approach in such circumstances.

I