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. 😀

Quite!

Identity develops through a process of accretion. It is not a static or fixed condition.Some aspects of ourselves we cannot change: our sex; our family of origin; our period in time - but everything else i a state of testing out, exploring and evolving through time and circumstance.

Welcome Piccalilli, and thank you for your post.

So why say "everyone who presents as masculine can be a man and everyone who presents as feminine can be a woman", as trans ideology seems to be doing with gender?

This is exactly why trans ideology is so regressive.

Okay! I have a suggestion!

Is 'gender identity' potentially: 'how you feel about your biological sex'?

If we can define it in relation to biological sex, it can make sense. It is then tethered to the world.

"And yes, there is a safety issue. Because nobody is checking for gender recognition certificates or doing genital inspections on toilet doors. (And even if they did, most trans women have male genitals and no gender recognition certificate anyway.) And there is no gender identity detector test to distinguish those who genuinely believe they identify as women from those who are merely faking it."

IMO the safety issue does not only arise from whether the person "genuinely" identifies as a woman or not. The physical body is not changed into a different type of physical body by the sincerity of the belief that one is a woman. Rather, the safety issue (IMO) arises from the fact that when society forces women and girls to accept people with a p3ni$ into private spaces where we are uncovered and physically vulnerable, society is taking away our right to have boundaries around our physical bodies. Society is saying, no, you will not have a way to use the public pool without exposing your naked body to someone with a penis, or where you will be exposed to a naked body with a penis.

Also, when society refuses to acknowledge that men and women are physically different in a material way, what society is doing is taking away our right and ability to disclose when our physical boundaries have been violated, for example, by declaring that a private space is single-sex when in fact it is not single sex. How are girls supposed to report physical crossings of boundaries, whether indecent exposure, touching, etc, when those to whom they are supposed to report those violations will not even admit that one or more persons who are biologically male were present in that location?

A very good illustration of that is the other thread on here from a woman upset by a male in the female changing room.

"How are girls supposed to report physical crossings of boundaries, whether indecent exposure, touching, etc, when those to whom they are supposed to report those violations will not even admit that one or more persons who are biologically male were present in that location?"

And with that we are back to the lowering of people's boundaries which is a main principle of Queer Theory. I wonder if Spooky has looked up Foucault and Queer Theory yet?

And then we also have ask the question, exactly who benefits, and by that ALL who benefit from having male people undressing with any female person of any age?

Or to make it explicit. Exactly who benefits when any male person over the age of puberty has the freedom to enter a room where female people are undressed?

What benefit is this to any female person?

Problem: if your identity is "male person with dysphoria", it is not the same identity as "female person without dysphoria".

The "who benefits" question is the million dollar one, in my view.

I also have a similar question about puberty blockers. I always assumed the answer to that one was "big pharma", who are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of turning healthy children into lifelong medical patients who will be dependent on their drugs forever.

But after the Jacob Breslow scandal, I found myself thinking, "There's no innocent reason why a self-confessed paedophile would become a trustee of a children's charity, is there? From what I understand, the "good" paedophiles who recognise that their sexual attraction to children is wrong and that they must never act on it do everything in their power to stay away from children and avoid temptation. But this specific children's charity pushes puberty blockers for 10 and 11 year olds. And what do these drugs have the power to do? They can create 16 year olds with the bodies of 10 and 11 year olds. Who benefits from that? Ah yes, it's obvious, isn't it? People like Jacob Breslow."

Yes, the question when focused on children transitioning becomes very worrisome.

I think that some of you are so accustomed to talking with each other about those who share my worldview, that you seem to have forgotten that I’m still right here. Several of you have made arguments against things I never claimed, some things I specifically said the opposite of. And you’re inventing this big malicious bogey man you imagine pulling the strings and I want to remind you that you are not immune to propaganda from those who share your views who wish to demonise those who share my views with misinformation about us.

I will ignore a lot of these later posts and focus on some of the earlier ones that I did find thought provoking. @howdoesatoastermaketoast ’s post really stood out to me. It didn’t actually occur to me that a child might find the prospect of working through their own gender identity overwhelming rather than liberating, though now that I think about it that possibility should have been obvious. You have given me a lot to think about.

Has anyone said that you have made the arguments? Or are you responding to arguments that have been suggested?

And you don't want to look at where the roots of gender identity has come from? Because you believe it could only be propaganda?

Would you mind clarifying please?

I agree with PPs about the dangers of affirmation and the lack of risk of explaining about sexual orientation to a child.

My point is that we know that same-sex attraction exists. Even taking internal feelings out of the equation, sexual attraction can be observed and monitored - in the brain, the genitals, the whole body. In other words, sexual orientation is real. Transgender identity or gender identity has not been shown to be real. A tiny minority of people believe they have one, according to the latest E&W census data. GI is entirely unevidenced - it is unclear what it is supposed to be, or even what sort of thing it is. You yourself have admitted that you do not know. Some claim a biological basis (as yet undiscovered), others claim it is an essence.

So if GI is mentioned at school at all, it should be in religious education. But it has no greater claim for consideration as a valid subject in this area than astrology. Religions are taught about because they explain parts of our history, have created part of our culture and because millions of people cherish religious beliefs. Religion is therefore important. (I say this even as an atheist!) That's why kids should be taught about it, but even religion should not be taught as fact.

I don't think GI is paedophilic. I think the trans age movement, the close cousin of the transgender movement, is paedophilic. The blurring of boundaries and rejection of safeguarding espoused by the transgender movement gives cover to paedophiles who want to access children while hiding in plain sight.

And about sex - sexual reproduction evolved 1.4 billion years ago as a very efficient method of creating robust organisms. Mixing DNA the from two plant or animal individuals to create a third increased the resistance of the group as a whole to disease. The method of mixing DNA is by having 50% of the DNA required for a whole new organism in one small gamete and 50% of the DNA plus a food source in one large gamete, and merging the gametes. Male and female bodies of any animal species are production and delivery systems for small and large gametes respectively. That's all sex is. That's not all human beings are, of course. We have brains and consciousness and personalities and a wonderful variety of talent, behaviour and appearance. But we are all male or female.

I'll carry on with the thread, but had to say this first in case I forgot.

@SpookyFBI

I don't think I have engaged in any of the questioning of "agendas" that I suspect might have offended you?

What I would say is that I don't think that anyone is saying that all genderists are paedophiles, but that some of the gender arguments make it easier for people with bad motives to tag along. I don't know if I have misunderstood my own "side" here, though. Maybe someone else will clarify!

*my post above is addressed to @SpookyFBI

Obviously you are here, but the thread is not about you alone. Threads diverge and take on lives of their own.

I haven't forgotten you're here.

I have, however, noticed that you only seem to be willing to engage with what you feel are the easier points, and ignoring the more difficult ones.

I don't think that any one here would be suggesting all people fully supporting gender identity to be prioritised over sex are all paedophiles, or even a large proportion.

Just the same ratio as within the rest of society. However, when looking at how benefits from lowering the boundaries of women and children, that gives easier access to victims. And there have already been incidents where this has happened so this is not 'propaganda'. Nor is it 'theoretical'.

This is discussing the very real ramifications of ill conceived laws and policy.

Is there a reason that we would not expect to discuss this?

Yeah difficult questions eh? As if we haven't all been through the 'WTF' moments on a daily basis since working out whatis going on here.

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you.

Anyway on a lighter note, watching normies climbing higher and higher every day really is quite something. It is unravelling, piece by piece.

Yes!

That is why I have found this thread really quite annoying. It has all been framed as about being a genuine good faith dialogue and people have been at pains ( too much, I think) to be seen to be thoughtful and reasonable; expounding at great length and in an often verbiose manner.

I've always seen myself as being reasonable too; finding some people's posting styles to be too aggressive or needlessly provocative - but for some reason this thread ,and the one that preceded it, has irritated me - which i think is opposite to what it was supposedly meant to achieve.

I don't think anything much has been achieved to be honest. When people are coming from irreconcilable viewpoints and positions - and won't deal with the trickier questions at all - it is nothing more than a sound chamber.

verbose

I wonder if some people (this is a 'general' people and not aimed at anyone) who support the prioritisation of gender over sex in all aspects are uncomfortable discussing the very real ramifications of this, or the already known and published background theories and theorists that support that prioritisation.

Hence why they need it to be kept all very theoretical. Whereas many of are dealing with those ramifications in our lives so we are discussing this in depth, to the detailed outcomes of each of these law and policy changes as well as the 'theoretical' of 'gender identity'. And are used to discussing this in depth so we drift naturally across all discussion points.

Several of you have made arguments against things I never claimed, some things I specifically said the opposite of. And you’re inventing this big malicious bogey man you imagine pulling the strings and I want to remind you that you are not immune to propaganda from those who share your views who wish to demonise those who share my views with misinformation about us

One point: 'those who share my views' - those who share some of your views. Just as with feminists/women, there are a multiplicity of different viewpoints among those who support gender ideology. You cannot possibly speak for all of them.

Great to hear your views, yes, but I would do you the respect of listening and not extrapolating that as some monolithic catechism. They are your views. (And to be perfectly honest, I'm still not clear on what they are.)

Any thoughts on what 'gender' actually is, yet?

Yes, rather a lot of theory and postulating - which I think serve as distancing techniques. Which is why I think much of the conversation has felt rather like a well mannered parlour game.

Yeah I think that's a great point well made.

The women/ biological women / adult human females can have any of the feelings, or any type of soul spirit essence and if they choose to and it makes sense to them as a way to help explain their feelings they can describe their gender identity using any words they see fit.

The men / biological men / adult human males can have any of the feelings, or any type of soul spirit essence and if they choose to and it makes sense to them as a way to help explain their feelings they can describe their gender identity using any words they see fit.

But gender identity is too nebulous and personal to try to organise society on it.

The message kids need to hear from us (parents teachers adults generally) so far as I'm concerned is

You don't need to worry about whether you were born in the wrong body. That isn't a thing that actually happens to people. Your feelings are fine, your personality is fine, you don't need to hide or fix your sexual orientation or try to be more feminine (or more masculine) to try to fit in better and if you feel aren't quite like all the other girls / boys, so what?! You do you, all the different versions of you. You can go through embarrassing phases have bad haircuts, wear the extreme fashions, figure out what feels right and comfortable. Clothes are there to make you feel comfortable happy and confident. Don't try to imagine you're really supposed to know exactly who you are yet - trust me people are still figuring this stuff out into their 20's and beyond. Your official name stays your official name but for nicknames and online names knock yourself out.

Your body does not need fixing or altering to fit your feelings or personality better. Your personality is not a medical condition that requires lifelong treatment. Happiness comes from accepting yourself just as you are.

In relationships be upfront about who you are and what you want from the relationship. A life lived in fear is a life half lived, so don't waste your time and energy trying to hide or fix which sex you are. Just be you.