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. 😀

Speaking of making it easier to concentrate on the discussion points, does anyone else wish that MN fixed the formatting around the bullet points and numbered points?

Or is there a post somewhere with instructions to fix the indented paragraphs? I want to use numbers and bullet points but find the result to be hard to read on my phone.

Fair point but personally I would acknowledge that the other party sees it as fact that TWAW, whereas I see it as a belief and then move the discussion on to whatever point we need to discuss. If I'm told that's transphobic I would say I accept that they see it that way. I would then use the example of religion and whether God exists or not: how could an atheist and Christian (for example) have a meaningful discussion about a topic if they choose to spend their time arguing over whether God exists or not. I would then ask respectfully if we can continue the conversation if I can accept that it's transphobic of me to say TWANW, just as I would accept it's blasphemous of me to say that God doesn't exist.
I would make my point that because I don't believe in gender identity, the word "cis" has no meaning for me when I describe myself. Yet for someone who does believe in gender identity, the word has meaning. I would then say that I'd leave it up to them to decide whether they should apply it to me or not, given their own principles of self-ID. I may leave the last bit of that final sentence off, considering it's pretty passive aggressive in pointing out the irony 😁 But if they did decide to use the term cis in general, that's fine. I would continue the discussion using the word woman. We'd both know exactly what each other meant.

Interesting post, Spooky. I am going to try and reply to the points you make, in good faith of course!

First of all, thank you for admitting that you don't always fact check sources you rely on if they support your existing point of view. I think this is something we are all guilty of but it takes a certain amount of honesty to admit it.

When you mentioned having to explain to people what gender identity means, and the idea that it might be a new concept for some people on this board, I can assure you that it is not in any way a new concept to people on this board. If people are asking you to explain it, it's not because they have never heard of this newfangled thing called gender identity, it's because they've heard all about it, think it is all a load of nonsense, and want you to explain it because they don't think you will be able to explain it without it becoming obvious that it is all a load of nonsense. Perhaps you would see this as not arguing in good faith!

I think drawing a parallel with religion is actually very useful, although I appreciate that some people who believe in gender identity object to that comparison.

Put it this way: there are a great many people in the world who are Christians. They believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they believe that Jesus was the son of God who came to earth to save us from our sins and offer us a path to salvation, they believe that he was crucified, died and was buried, and that three days later he rose from the dead and then ascended to heaven. I personally do not believe any of these things, but I believe that Christians exist and I can explain more or less what it is that Christians believe. If I wanted to argue with a Christian, or embarrass a Christian, or perhaps object to Christian beliefs forming the basis of laws which apply to non-Christians, I might ask them to explain what it is they believe and why. I would not expect them to renounce their faith on the basis of a conversation with me but I might succeed in getting them to admit that there is actually no proof of what they believe - that is why they call it "the mystery of faith" - and that their choice to believe in it should be a free choice and not imposed on the rest of us.

For what it's worth, I think Christians are actually more coherent in what they believe than those who believe in gender identity. Certainly, I have a fairly clear idea in my head about what God the Father is supposed to be, an even clearer idea about Jesus, i.e. God the Son, and when it comes to the Holy Spirit, well, I guess we're back to some sort of intangible "God essence". But since the laws of this country aren't being made according to Christian beliefs, and since you can no longer be punished for not being a Christian, or not being the right kind of Christian, I don't think it greatly matters. Let them believe what they want to believe. I will only object if I think people are being harmed.

I accept that trans people exist, the same way that Christians exist. And I accept that for those people, their gender identity may be very real to them, the same way God is very real to Christians. But just because something is real to them does not mean it is actually real, or real to everyone. Christians believe that God is actually real, whether other people believe in it or not. Atheists believe that God is not actually real, whether other people believe in it or not. Agnostics believe that God might be real, but haven't seen any compelling evidence to convince them either way. And perhaps some people believe that God is literally real to those who believe, and literally not real to those who don't believe.

As you can see, it is very personal.

For people who are strong believers in gender identity, it is very important to promote the world view that not only is it real, but that everyone has one. Those of us who maintain that we do not have or believe in gender identity are repeatedly told that we are "cis", and that not believing in gender identity is an example of "cis privilege", i.e. we are so used to being the privileged majority in this world view that we don't even realise how privileged we are. This is particularly hard to stomach when, for example, it is implied that a woman of colour who has escaped a sexually abusive relationship and is seeking counselling is more privileged than a white, male-born person who identifies as a woman and she should therefore "be kind" and not object to sharing a single sex space with such a person.

It's also difficult to stomach when the people who believe in gender identity insist that it exists and that everyone has one, but cannot explain in clear terms what it actually is or why they are so sure that everyone has one.

What are the elements of "womanhood" which aren't related to having female reproductive anatomy? What is it? Is it about wearing dresses? Makeup? Liking the colour pink? Playing with Barbies as a child? Enjoying shopping as a leisure activity? These are stereotypes. There are men who do these things and women who do not. Defining a woman as someone who does these things excludes huge numbers of women who do not do these things.

Believers in gender identity claim that it is not about these things, but they cannot explain what it IS about. What are the features of the identity that "matches" having a vagina, so that if you have these features but were born with a penis, you know you were supposed to be born female and something went wrong somewhere? Nobody can explain.

Some people say that identifying as a woman just means whatever the individual wants it to mean. So for some people it might mean being biologically female, i.e. the sex class with the potential to get pregnant and give birth, and for some people it might mean liking the colour pink.

This is a more honest answer.

But it creates a problem: if what makes someone a woman is different for everyone, the group of people you are calling "women" have absolutely nothing in common with each other. If the word "woman" means whatever the individual wants it to mean, it doesn't actually mean anything. And that means we don't need a word for this group of people, and they don't need their own toilets, prisons or sporting categories. It makes it very difficult to justify having women only spaces at all, let alone trans women being allowed to use them on the basis that they are the same as women.

So this is why those who believe in gender identity continue to insist that it not only exists but that everyone has one, and that women and trans women have the same one which is why we should be using the same toilets and competing in the same sports, even when many of us disagree completely.

I draw associations in the use of language you describe to how it feel's being gaslit in an emotionally abusive relationship.

I keep seeing similarities after similarities with my personal experience of DV and that of women I know to how this ideology works. I feel women are being abused on the meta with the same tactics as the micro of DV.

For me including men in the definition of woman without my consent is a violation

What would be the point of this extended discusssion in your view? What would you hope to achieve - other than the realisation that your views were inherently incompatible?

Wouldn't it be nothing but an intellectual game-playing exercise in practiced 'good faith' discussion.

I think I have arrived at the same place from the other side. I think that when there is a highly polarising issue, it is very very easy for both sides to demonise the other and only see the very worst actors from the out group, but I have come to think that the vast majority of people in both groups are probably very sensible, reasonable people who have simply arrived at different worldviews through their different experiences. There is no trans agenda or right wing agenda, just people doing their best to try to do what they believe is right in a messy and complicated world.

@SpookyFBI

Thank you for this:
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.)

I think it makes a huge difference and I fully respect the significant shift that it represents and the request for space to process that.

Other PPs have made some great points about toilet in response.

I found the way you explained your thoughts around the lesbians being rightfully free to not want to date anyone with a penis really interesting. I fully agree with you that it's all about the positioning and I thought you explained that really well. Another good example of a hateful retort to someone wanting to state this preference is when they get called a "genital fetishist". As a slight aside, I'm guessing most straight men who believe in gender identity (and those who don't) would also have a preference for people without penises. They could be labelled "gender fetishists" too and it would be similarly unhelpful.

There will be some people who believe the words "lesbians" and "women" can include transwomen, there will be some who don't. In the majority of (all?) cases, I'd expect the division in this belief to be based on whether someone believed in gender identity or not.

If either party in a discussion about it allowed themselves to be sidetracked by the definition of the words "woman" or "lesbian" (according to their different beliefs on the subject of gender identity), their mutual agreement that lesbians should be free to date people without penises would be lost.

Asking about the transracial thing is completely legitimate. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting?

The only time I agree about not having the best interest for all women is when I hear:

Woman face is the same as blackface

Or

X isn't a woman because they're 6ft, too thin, broad shoulders, emaciated, ew women don't look like that etc etc

Sorry @SpookyFBI, that was very long. I have one more thing to say which I will put in a separate post.

It's about the definition of the word "lesbian".

Until very recently, I think the vast majority of people accepted that heterosexual means you are exclusively attracted to those of the opposite sex, i.e. with the other kind of genitalia to yours, homosexual means you are exclusively attracted to those of the same sex, i.e. those with the same kind of genitalia as yours, and bisexual means you are attracted to those of both sexes, i.e. people with any kind of genitalia. Lesbian is a subset of homosexual, meaning biological females who are exclusively attracted to other biological females. Gay men are also a subset of homosexual, meaning biological males who are exclusively attracted to other biological males, although gay can also be used more generally as a synonym for homosexual. Asexual means you are not sexually attracted to anybody.

These words actually cover all possible bases. We do not actually need any other words to describe different sexual orientations, because there are no other sexual orientations. Take "pansexual" for example. There is no difference between a pansexual and a bisexual. Both are open to sexual relationships with people of either male or female genitalia.

There are many people who are only attracted to people who are intelligent but don't feel the need to refer to themselves as sapiosexual. They are all also heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

There are many people who only have sexual relationships with people they have formed an emotional attachment to but don't feel the need to refer to themselves as demisexual. They are all also heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

What we have today is a situation where we have 86 new words for different sexual orientations which are not in fact sexual orientations, but personal preferences which many people have had without needing a word for it since the year dot. But there is no longer a word for "biologically female people who are exclusively sexually attracted to other biologically female people", because biologically male people who want to date biologically female people - who are in fact heterosexual males - want to use the word "lesbian" to describe themselves. They also want to use lesbian dating sites, coerce lesbians into accepting them as sexual partners, and have lesbians who believe that lesbians are people who do not have and are not attracted to penises kicked out of Pride events.

Why do you think these biological males who are sexually attracted to biological females did not invent a new word for their sexual orientation, if they believed that the word "heterosexual" does not cover what they are, rather than appropriating the word "lesbian"?

Beautifully put 😍

And because this is the vast majority, reasonable people's voices can be louder, with respectful debate from differing viewpoints coming out on top. Just as it has on this thread.

I had an online conversation with some people recently. I said I have no "gender", I don't believe in gender ideology, my biology is very important but my personality is just me. I dress how I like, don't wear makeup etc etc. "Aha!" they declared "You are Agender! You have just confirmed it yourself!". I said "that's like saying a typical Gemini doesn't believe in astrology [I don't btw]." Unsurprisingly they flounced because I made them unsafe and was perpetuating transphobia and genocide.

You can't argue with a cult member.

I too have had to do or have seen almost everything these posters have mentioned.

In response to the 'words don't mean what they used to mean' attitudes currently prevalent in society secondary schools in England and Wales have begun to have unisex toilets rather than single sex ones. The outcomes are not so great.

Girls are unhappy, they are avoiding using the unisex toilets, and avoiding drinking so that they won't need a wee. More girls are missing more time from school because of their period. The impacts are relatively small so far in part anecdotes and 'isolated cases' but they are real but it's clear enough for me to be sure that it's a trend I want to resist and say no to rather than a trend I would like to continue.

In boys school kicking the door in whilst girls were in the cubical to try to see them on the loo and take a photo had become a popular game amongst the boys to the point where many of the stalls no longer locked. It made the news when a girl was injured having been hit in the face by the door.

I understand the kind of 'in a perfect world the people would all treat each other with respect and you could have unisex loos' kind of thinking I just think there's a massive reality gap between the world as it actually is now and the 'perfect world' of the academic theory. If you make the loos unisex the respectful equality will not suddenly appear as if by magic.

Single sex spaces such as public conveniences / changing rooms for sports and p.e. are what allow women and girls to participate in society despite the fact that not all men and boys are lovely respectful perfect creatures. If they do succeed in getting rid of them all it seems to me that women and girls self excluding from places and activities that no longer feel safe and welcoming is a much more likely and realistic outcome than the all guys will now be kind and respectful.

I have to disagree quite strongly about there not being a trans agenda.

A few decades ago we used words like "transvestite", "cross-dresser" and "transsexual" to describe male born people who choose to dress in women's clothing and in some cases medically/surgically alter their bodies to resemble a woman's body.

Then, quite recently, it became "trans woman". But most people understood the difference between a trans woman and a woman. A woman was an actual woman and a trans woman was a man who wanted to be treated for all intents and purposes as though they were a woman.

Then, very recently, we started hearing "trans women are women". And women who weren't born with a penis are "cis women".

Even more recently, we started to see trans women referring to themselves as "female" or even "biological female".

The goalposts keep shifting.

I think the agenda is to prevent us from being able to clearly identify and discuss biological sex, by redefining every single word that means biological sex to mean gender identity instead.

Once society accepts that trans women are biologically female, what word do we have to describe people who actually are biologically female?

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.

Wanted to respond to this bit, Spooky.

I can agree with it in theory. It sounds pleasantly reasonable. Most people are reasonable people. I can see how it could be 'no big deal' to have mixed sex spaces.

The problem is that when we look at statistics, we see that mixed sex changing rooms, loos etc, are not safe for women.

Unfortunately, rapists, predators, abusers, exhibitionists, all exist. They are an unpleasant fact of life. And they seek vulnerabilities where they can access victims.

Quite a bit of rad fem discourse is predicated on the 'worst case scenario'.
So it involves looking at the evidence and statistics on rape, assault, etc, finding the vulnerabilities, and trying to reduce them.

When we consider that there are also some religious tenets that have rules about women sharing spaces, removing headscarves, being in close proximity to men, that's another reason we need single sex spaces.

When we add in the fact that many women are survivors of assault and abuse and dv, and many have PTSD or even just a strong aversion to being in a small space with a larger, stronger, male-bodied person, that's another reason to protect these single sex spaces. So that's safety.

'Privacy' and 'dignity' are the other reasons we have single sex spaces in law. The simple fact is that many, if not most, women prefer not to share changing rooms, loos, etc, with males.

Bluntly, women should have the right to participate in public life, and for many (I agree, not all) women, this requires single sex spaces. See also the article on the 'urinary leash' I posted above.

Many organisations recognise this need and are currently campaigning to improve facilities for women in developing countries - can't remember exactly who now, I think perhaps WaterAid is one.

As for your mum using the men's facilities - this is likely to be far safer than allowing a male to use the women's. Probably why there is such a strong social contract that while it's okay - a bit cheeky, maybe - for a woman to use the male facility - it's absolutely not okay for a male to use the women's.

sorry should read: In [one school] boys [were] school kicking the door

don't know what happened there

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

And that sentence changed my stance. I was all for unisex accessible toilets then realised shit I've done this too. What would have happened if there was no toilet to hide in?

No thank you! to toilets being open to both sexes.

Just to repeat myself, I do not want others to be dealing with a flooding period with a stroller laden with groceries and a crying toddler jamming open the door having any male present.

Maybe people who have cars, or are well supported and never had to deal with it all themselves or whatever don’t understand that female toilets are not just somewhere to pee.

“open public access” sounds wonderful in theory, but it doesn’t live up to catering for the needs of female people in reality. How can it? Well, I guess if you really haven’t had to deal with strollers and prams or stained clothes under a hand drier, you wouldn’t think of those needs. However, they still exist and they still require single sex spaces.

There is definitely an agenda.

And whilst it can be acknowledged that there are people who believe in gender identity I don't think it can be given equal weight. Just in the same way that in a secular society it is understood and accepted that there are religious people; and they are free to practice their faith within the law - but they are not going to be able to pass laws on the basis of this protected belief.

Now I think of it, if you have a car and convenient car parking, I guess you would never have imagined doors of toilets jammed open with as much shopping as you can carry on the handles of a stroller, dealing with getting to the toilet as quick as you can because bladder issues and period issues.

I don't think cars will solve the need for single sex facilities, Helleofabore. Not unless they're all equipped with shewees.

Does it matter if there is an agenda or not? Equally, does it matter if there is a right wing agenda or not? I'm happy for these to both be rhetorical questions. Utimately every individual person, community group or political party has an "agenda" of some kind and the motivations behind them can vary.

Boundaries and values shift all the time. We only have to look back at history to see that. I'm glad the UK didn't stay in the puritan era when Oliver Cromwell took over, for example (no sport, music, entertainment allowed.. and Christmas couldn't be celebrated).

What matters significantly to me is what you said about laws being based on secularism, not beliefs. And that people should be free to hold and express their beliefs within those laws.

It might not matter if all you are looking for is an intelllectual exercise.

Of course it matters. That s why most of us are here and are actively pushing back against this agenda in all of the ways we can or are able.

Off the pages of MN and the internet this agenda is being enacted in real life.

I have to be honest, I'm not sure of your motive here. I've always been one for reasoned and civil debate but you seem to want to push it in directions for the sake of it.

”There is no trans agenda or right wing agenda, just people doing their best to try to do what they believe is right in a messy and complicated world.”

Spooky I believe both those groups have agendas. And to clarify, the feminist agenda is most certainly not a ‘right wing’ agenda. Despite the many activist voices who have portrayed the feminist agenda as ‘right wing’ to shame feminists.

No. Both groups have an agenda. In fact, I believe that the ‘trans agenda’ goes right back past the Yogyakarta conference. (By the way, I remember that after attending that conference Julia Gillard pushed through that additional ‘gender identity’ clause to Australia’s anti-discrimination act. That which has now led to lesbians not being allowed to exclude any male in certain states.)

Has this been posted?

https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf

It is the famed Denton’s report.

There was another strategy document released for the USA a couple of years ago also that also advised activists how to manipulate interactions with people to gain support. It was all about what arguments to use, what points to never mention. It was manipulation through and through.

But once you see this Denton’s report you begin to see how the agenda has been rolled out already and the plans.

Someone already posted James Morton’s words about focusing on prison policy. (There is a female who sold out other females to get their goal!)

But you do see it regularly. For instance Rachel MacKinnon/Ivy publicly stated something along the lines of ‘people call us women and use female pronouns, they see us as real women, you shouldn’t deny us access to sport etc’. Again, that was yet another link in the chain of long-term societal manipulation towards denial of material reality.