Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

1000 replies

Catiette · 30/04/2023 11:43

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. 😀

OP posts:
Thread gallery
48
RedToothBrush · 01/05/2023 10:58

Either we accept gender dysphoria is a mental health condition or we don't. There isnt a middle ground on it.

If we accept it's a mental health condition we say it requires assistance. And needs to be treated.

That doesn't mean changing language for non suffers because that has mental health impacts on others. The figures for mental health issues on family members which one of the older trans charities were using years ago were significant. But this hasn't been followed up in recent years.

It also find it striking that there are concerns that anorexia sufferers are increasingly being put into palliative care pathways whilst we see the law was changed primarily for male gender dysphoria suffers with the increase in gender dsyphoria in young women and girls only happening AFTER the law change. And even then the benefits of transition in research are still very much male based because it hasn't been carried out at length since the change in gender dsyphoria patterns.

The is a sex based discrimination going on even in this, which should be talked about.

The research just is a pile of biased crap with huge sex based ommisions.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:04

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:42

Okay. So your suggestion would be that all facilities should be mixed sex, and that there should be no sex segregation?

I did not suggest that. You're twisting my words. I have absolutely zero interest in getting into a Helen P style debate about what is gender, what is a woman and what is sex. It's not relevant and it's a red herring.

You've got three choices:

  1. Everything goes unisex, one facility for everyone. I'm not promoting this.
  2. Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their gender (the way it currently is). This means cis women & trans women together, and cis men & trans men together. This is what a small minority of people currently want to change.
  3. Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their birth genitals, so trans men & cis women are together, and trans women & cis men are together.

My argument is that on the whole, #3 is significantly more dangerous than #2 for numerous reasons:

  1. If people are "afraid" of looking at men, then that will increase significantly with option #3, when trans men who have transitioned, are hairy and tall and muscular and have penises are forced to share facilities with cis women.
  2. Cis men who want to cause harm can simply use the women's facilities and claim to be trans men.
  3. Trans women, particularly those who have transitioned and e.g. are small, have female genitalia & look like a stereotypical woman, are forced to share facilities with cis men.

I don't deny that some people are uncomfortable with option #2 but my point is that any change you make will be significantly more dangerous and significantly more fearful for the people who are already afraid.

You've left out the most obvious option - which is option 4: third spaces and gender neutral facilities for those that prefer them, alongside single sex ( biological sex)spaces for those that need, require or prefer them.

You seem focused on protecting transwomen from men, but are happy to impose males into women's spaces without any thought or concern for their feelings of comfort, dignity or safety.

Your arguments are no substitutes for what Spooky was able to offer. You have even admitteed you are not willing to get into a good faith discussion on the nature of sex and gender.

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 11:05

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:42

Okay. So your suggestion would be that all facilities should be mixed sex, and that there should be no sex segregation?

I did not suggest that. You're twisting my words. I have absolutely zero interest in getting into a Helen P style debate about what is gender, what is a woman and what is sex. It's not relevant and it's a red herring.

You've got three choices:

  1. Everything goes unisex, one facility for everyone. I'm not promoting this.
  2. Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their gender (the way it currently is). This means cis women & trans women together, and cis men & trans men together. This is what a small minority of people currently want to change.
  3. Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their birth genitals, so trans men & cis women are together, and trans women & cis men are together.

My argument is that on the whole, #3 is significantly more dangerous than #2 for numerous reasons:

  1. If people are "afraid" of looking at men, then that will increase significantly with option #3, when trans men who have transitioned, are hairy and tall and muscular and have penises are forced to share facilities with cis women.
  2. Cis men who want to cause harm can simply use the women's facilities and claim to be trans men.
  3. Trans women, particularly those who have transitioned and e.g. are small, have female genitalia & look like a stereotypical woman, are forced to share facilities with cis men.

I don't deny that some people are uncomfortable with option #2 but my point is that any change you make will be significantly more dangerous and significantly more fearful for the people who are already afraid.

”If people are "afraid" of looking at men”

I think this gives away that your have a prejudice about women who want to retain their single sex spaces.

There is a 4th option though. A third space where anyone who wants to use it will and leave the female single sex space for female people.

Your forcing of 3 options is a false limited option

Original poster
Catiette · 01/05/2023 11:06

“When we enable a situation that… people's eligibility for facilities should depend on whether other people might be afraid of them based on what they look like, this hurts everybody“

@Deiji, could you explain how you reconcile the above with the universal, human-rights-driven standard of sex-segregated facilities in certain contexts? That system of safeguarding acknowledges males are, statistically, a risk to females. I identify males, and to consequently adapt my own behaviour accordingly, based on „what they look like“ (I personally can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been uncertain in my judgement).

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 11:07

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:49

But how do you know Jamie Wallis is a 'transwoman'?

You don't know whether anyone is cis or trans. That's my point. Sometimes you might think it's obvious but sometimes it really isn't. Sometimes you'll see a cis woman and think they're a trans man; sometimes you'll see a trans women and think they're a cis woman. You don't know.

I'm arguing that judging people based on what they look like, and then using your fear based on what they look like to decide which facilities they use is wrong, and it's more likely to hurt women than help them. Many women are not gender non-conforming; many cis women will have features that cause people to think they're men.

I do not support a system where people are excluded from facilities based on their appearance.

On this basis how do you exclude cis men?

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:09

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:56

Transwomen and 'cis' men have one important thing in common - they are both male.

We have single sex spaces that arec predicated not on personal identity, dress, preference - but on sex. this is especially important for women and girls.

So you think that women & girls would feel no fear whatsoever at sharing a facility with someone who is tall, muscular, has no breasts, has a penis, facial hair, & wears stereotypically men's clothes?

I don't believe this idea that women & girls wouldn't feel any fear at sharing facilities with a trans man who had medically transitioned. I think they'd accuse that person of being a cis man and expect him to be excluded from the service.

See third spaces and additional gender neutral facilities and open categories for people with gender identities and anyone else who might prefer them.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:10

I see quite a few women, in my city, who are clearly identifying as trans - who have facial hair, masculine attire, breat binders, tattoos - and no, I'm not afraid of them.

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 11:12

Sorry. X posted

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 11:13

If you argue for separation/segregation by gender instead of sex then you are arguing for mixed sex spaces.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:13

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:37

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

It's never been the law that people have to use the facilities based on their gender. When did this happen? I'm not young and I have no recollection of everything of the sort.

The concept of 'gender identity' has really only been around for the last 10 years. I was a teacher in 2010 - and it simply wasn't a thing at all. When i was at university in the 1980's It wsn;t a thing at all. I did a module in 'women's studies' as part of my degree. Gender Studies didn't really bcome in until the 1990's. It originated on U.S university campuses.

Single sex facilities have always been understood to be sex based.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:15

You've left out the most obvious option - which is option 4: third spaces and gender neutral facilities for those that prefer them, alongside single sex ( biological sex)spaces for those that need, require or prefer them.

I don't think this is obvious because 1) building a fourth set of toilets (male, female, disabled, unisex) is necessarily feasible everywhere, and 2) what if trans men and trans women don't want to share a unisex toilet?

You seem focused on protecting transwomen from men, but are happy to impose males into women's spaces without any thought or concern for their feelings of comfort, dignity or safety.

That's an incorrect interpretation, I have repeatedly stressed the negative impact this will have on cis women. I don't think any attempt to express concern for trans women will be supported here, so I didn't focus on that.

Your arguments are no substitutes for what Spooky was able to offer. You have even admitteed you are not willing to get into a good faith discussion on the nature of sex and gender.

I do not believe that getting sidetracked by debating what is a woman or what is sex or what is gender will help provide good faith responses to this topic. It's a distraction from what is important, which is making sure that people are supported and safe.

@Deiji, could you explain how you reconcile the above with the universal, human-rights-driven standard of sex-segregated facilities in certain contexts?

Trans people are segregated in some limited contexts, as the law allows. I do not believe that judging people by how they look relates to human rights.

On this basis how do you exclude cis men?

It works the same no matter what you do. Whether you ask trans women or trans men to use women's toilets, either way you have the risk of cis men entering. The idea that asking trans women to use men's facilities will stop cis men from entering women's facilities is a logical fallacy; it will make it easier for cis men to enter women's facilities.

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 11:17

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:50

These are male people, and according to the law, these males can be excluded from spaces using exceptions under the law.

In rare and proportional circumstances. Not as a matter of course.

Your framing here shows that you are falling back on emotional manipulation to attempt to get your point across.

Incorrect, and I do not appreciate you attempting to reframe my comments in such a way. Please refrain from doing that again. I have every right to disagree with you without being accused of manipulation. Note that I have provided you with that same courtesy.

Yes. When a facility is needed to be single sex.

I’d put more stock on the legal feminists than I would the trans legal teams at this point.

And your framing male exclusion by comparing to black women and lesbians is offensive and you have been rightly told it is not a correct comparison. And it is done because it is an emotional manipulation tool used by activists.

Black women and lesbians are not male people.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:18

The concept of 'gender identity' has really only been around for the last 10 years. I was a teacher in 2010 - and it simply wasn't a thing at all. When i was at university in the 1980's It wsn;t a thing at all. I did a module in 'women's studies' as part of my degree. Gender Studies didn't really bcome in until the 1990's. It originated on U.S university campuses.

The exact term 'gender identity' was around since the 60s, but I can assure you that we've known about the existence of transgender people for much longer. I think, again, focusing on the etymology of words and which year a word came into vogue is a distraction from the real issue. It doesn't really matter when 'gender identity' began being used as a phrase in the UK. We've known & supported transgender people for much longer.

Hepwo · 01/05/2023 11:18

When we enable a situation that it's okay for people to judge people based on what they look like, and that people's eligibility for facilities should depend on whether other people might be afraid of them based on what they look like, this hurts everybody.

So how do you apply this "hurts everybody" to untangle the situation at WiSpa in California where a convicted male sex offender identified himself into the woman's section of a naked spa and exposed his erection to a child?

Are you worried that the feelings of the sex offender were hurt? A lot of people were, and the women complaining about this man's erection in a women's space were vilified by the liberal left who rioted outside the Spa in defence of the sex offender.

If you are promoting this idiocy I'm afraid you have lost all sense of decency.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:20

Yes. When a facility is needed to be single sex.

Yes. And it is used, occasionally, as it only needs to be used occasionally.

And your framing male exclusion by comparing to black women and lesbians is offensive and you have been rightly told it is not a correct comparison. And it is done because it is an emotional manipulation tool used by activists.

I find some of the things people are saying in here offensive but I'm not calling them out for emotional manipulation or accusing them of being activists. I'm accepting that people have different points of view. In the same way that I am not attempting to emotionally manipulate you, I am certain that you are also not attempting to emotionally manipulate me, either. Please leave these emotive terms out of it.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:21

So how do you apply this "hurts everybody" to untangle the situation at WiSpa in California where a convicted male sex offender identified himself into the woman's section of a naked spa and exposed his erection to a child?

When I was 16 my best friend was raped in a women's toilet by a cis man. He didn't pretend to be a women. He just walked into the toilet, as a cis man dressed like a cis man, and raped a child.

Cis men do not need to pretend to be women to hurt anybody.

Hepwo · 01/05/2023 11:22

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:18

The concept of 'gender identity' has really only been around for the last 10 years. I was a teacher in 2010 - and it simply wasn't a thing at all. When i was at university in the 1980's It wsn;t a thing at all. I did a module in 'women's studies' as part of my degree. Gender Studies didn't really bcome in until the 1990's. It originated on U.S university campuses.

The exact term 'gender identity' was around since the 60s, but I can assure you that we've known about the existence of transgender people for much longer. I think, again, focusing on the etymology of words and which year a word came into vogue is a distraction from the real issue. It doesn't really matter when 'gender identity' began being used as a phrase in the UK. We've known & supported transgender people for much longer.

The phrase gender identity is used to rebrand the transexual typology that was documented decades ago. That homosexual and heterosexual typology was too explicit and needed to be made more acceptable to the public. This is all in the public domain.

Hepwo · 01/05/2023 11:22

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:21

So how do you apply this "hurts everybody" to untangle the situation at WiSpa in California where a convicted male sex offender identified himself into the woman's section of a naked spa and exposed his erection to a child?

When I was 16 my best friend was raped in a women's toilet by a cis man. He didn't pretend to be a women. He just walked into the toilet, as a cis man dressed like a cis man, and raped a child.

Cis men do not need to pretend to be women to hurt anybody.

That doesn't answer my question. It dodges it.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:23

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:15

You've left out the most obvious option - which is option 4: third spaces and gender neutral facilities for those that prefer them, alongside single sex ( biological sex)spaces for those that need, require or prefer them.

I don't think this is obvious because 1) building a fourth set of toilets (male, female, disabled, unisex) is necessarily feasible everywhere, and 2) what if trans men and trans women don't want to share a unisex toilet?

You seem focused on protecting transwomen from men, but are happy to impose males into women's spaces without any thought or concern for their feelings of comfort, dignity or safety.

That's an incorrect interpretation, I have repeatedly stressed the negative impact this will have on cis women. I don't think any attempt to express concern for trans women will be supported here, so I didn't focus on that.

Your arguments are no substitutes for what Spooky was able to offer. You have even admitteed you are not willing to get into a good faith discussion on the nature of sex and gender.

I do not believe that getting sidetracked by debating what is a woman or what is sex or what is gender will help provide good faith responses to this topic. It's a distraction from what is important, which is making sure that people are supported and safe.

@Deiji, could you explain how you reconcile the above with the universal, human-rights-driven standard of sex-segregated facilities in certain contexts?

Trans people are segregated in some limited contexts, as the law allows. I do not believe that judging people by how they look relates to human rights.

On this basis how do you exclude cis men?

It works the same no matter what you do. Whether you ask trans women or trans men to use women's toilets, either way you have the risk of cis men entering. The idea that asking trans women to use men's facilities will stop cis men from entering women's facilities is a logical fallacy; it will make it easier for cis men to enter women's facilities.

  1. Trans people can use the sort of toilet facilities that have been proposed for women - with full length doors - if they don't feel comfortable in mixed sexed spaces. If it is good enough for women, it must be good enough for trans people, yes?
  'Cis' is not a concept that everyone employs or accepts.

It is not women's problem to deal with the consequnences of trans ideology for trans identifying people. It is not that women "don't care" about TW - more that they are rightly focused on their own needs.

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 01/05/2023 11:24

• Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their gender (the way it currently is). This means cis women & trans women together, and cis men & trans men together. This is what a small minority of people currently want to change.

This is what should change. Trans women have absolutely no place in women's toilets as they aren't women. If they don't feel comfortable in the men's, they look for a unisex toilet.

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 01/05/2023 11:25

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:21

So how do you apply this "hurts everybody" to untangle the situation at WiSpa in California where a convicted male sex offender identified himself into the woman's section of a naked spa and exposed his erection to a child?

When I was 16 my best friend was raped in a women's toilet by a cis man. He didn't pretend to be a women. He just walked into the toilet, as a cis man dressed like a cis man, and raped a child.

Cis men do not need to pretend to be women to hurt anybody.

So why should we welcome biological men into women's toilets? It just allows for any male to identify as a woman to assault one. It makes the danger to women higher.

Transparent2 · 01/05/2023 11:26

This thread has suddenly deteriorated. I observe that one person has left for the time being, and another person has arrived.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 11:26

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:21

So how do you apply this "hurts everybody" to untangle the situation at WiSpa in California where a convicted male sex offender identified himself into the woman's section of a naked spa and exposed his erection to a child?

When I was 16 my best friend was raped in a women's toilet by a cis man. He didn't pretend to be a women. He just walked into the toilet, as a cis man dressed like a cis man, and raped a child.

Cis men do not need to pretend to be women to hurt anybody.

When I was 17 a transwoman sexually assaulted me in a woman's toilet.

I guess in those days it was 'transexual'
, so maybe you're correct that the etymology doesn't matter so much.

What remains constant is males as a threat to females.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 11:27

Transparent2 · 01/05/2023 11:26

This thread has suddenly deteriorated. I observe that one person has left for the time being, and another person has arrived.

We can keep trying.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 11:27

Deiji · 01/05/2023 11:18

The concept of 'gender identity' has really only been around for the last 10 years. I was a teacher in 2010 - and it simply wasn't a thing at all. When i was at university in the 1980's It wsn;t a thing at all. I did a module in 'women's studies' as part of my degree. Gender Studies didn't really bcome in until the 1990's. It originated on U.S university campuses.

The exact term 'gender identity' was around since the 60s, but I can assure you that we've known about the existence of transgender people for much longer. I think, again, focusing on the etymology of words and which year a word came into vogue is a distraction from the real issue. It doesn't really matter when 'gender identity' began being used as a phrase in the UK. We've known & supported transgender people for much longer.

What was comonly understood as transsexuals have been around for a while - 1960's was really the firts time that transsexual surgery got going.

Radical tranansgenderism predicated on post modernistic queer theory is very different proposition, and not one that many transsexuals would recognise.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.