How did people start to believe in this trans stuff?

[IsThereAnEchoInHere]

I’m talking about the ’allys’, the one’s who believe in all this?
How did it make sense to them that women have penis’ now, that transwomen can compete with women, that men who were so oppressive yesterday can today be the most oppressed transwomen?

How did they get to that point?
How did it make sense to them?

To be complitely honest, I tried/ am trying to ’be nice’ and understand, but the more I read (from trans people, allys) the less it makes sense.
I wanted to understand, but my brain won’t let me.

Jane

I am again requesting sources and statistics. It seems you have pulled this information from thin air.

Ah. Thin air. Is that how you refer to the Government statistics, which show that about 48% of transw in British prisons are there for sex offences and offences of violence against women and children?

Which makes them five times more likely to be imprisoned for such crimes than on average, for male prisoners.

Not to mention the fact that Nellodee has provided links on this thread, more than once.

As a rule of thumb, those situations which are women-only, and before TRAs messed with the language were female-only, tend to be the ones where sex matters.

HTH

So do you think as a general rule it’s best to assume things are the way they are for good reasons, that those reasons must continue to apply, and therefore things should continue to operate in the same way they always have? Like marriage only being between a man and a woman? Or it not being a crime for a man to rape his wife? Or it being legal for parents and teachers to beat children?

As a general rule it’s best to assume things are the way they are for a reason - so it's important to understand what that reason is, and then analyse whether it is is good/still applicable before destroying something.

fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

Oh, has the need for single-sex spaces changed?

Are male-bodied peoplenot the perpetrators of violence against women 98% of the time any more?

100% agree.

I’ve just done some very quick, not particularly careful online research into the history of sex segregation of toilet facilities and the main articles were along these lines https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/11/gender-bathrooms-transgender-men-women-restrooms

Does anyone here know if this is accurate?

Well, not bathrooms, for a start. And they were always separated by sex, not gender. And - Guardian opinion notwithstanding - the US is not the world.

But leaving all that aside, this part is a flat out lie:

"Opponents of trans rights have employed the slogan “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms”, which evokes visions of weak women being subject to attack by men if trans women are allowed to “invade” the public bathroom.In fact, the only solid evidence of any such attacks in public restrooms are those directed at trans individuals, a significant percentage of whom report verbal and physical assault in such spaces."

There are plenty of examples of men - some trans identified, some not - attacking women in public loos. And data from changing rooms show that 90% of attacks in these spaces take place in mixed-sex rather single-sex facilities (Indont have figures to hand for loos, but it's a reasonable working assumption that a similar pattern is likely to apply).

Therefore whatever the original reason, and the validity of that, there is clearly a reason that is still valid now.

The fence stays.

Great, you’ve covered off public loos @aseriesofstillimages (using article with outright lies, as Popcorn says).

Now. What about changing rooms?

Prisons?

Rape crises centres?

Female support groups?

Sport?

Ad infinitum ….

Poor Jane. Heard Mumsnet is a viper’s nest of transphobic bigots so signed up to put us all straight.

Oopsy-daisy.

No, what a silly assumption to make.

You asked about situations where sex matters so I gave a specific answer to that. There's nothing in my answer to imply I think "assume things are the way they are for a reason" is a general rule for life 🤣. I'm afraid that's you reading in something that isn't there.

In fact if you read my answer properly also said "tend". I'm more than happy to re-establish the existing single sex boundaries as a starting point and then think properly, situation by situation, whether any are no longer needed. I"m pretty sure that hairdressers, for example, don't need to be women-only(1), nor the Masons men-only.

Which is exactly what should have been done all along - an honest and open public debate and carefully thought through change (which incidentally is what happened with opening up marriage ).

Instead we had the dishonest sleight of hand where rather than looking at sex specific situations to see if they still made sense, TRAs insisted the meaning of the word Woman itself was changed, and thereby appropriated everything that was Women-only for trans women without going through any open assessment of whether specific situations were single sex rather than single gender. That was clearly a mistake and should be rolled back.

You're also forgetting that due to the Equalities Act, there was already a mechanism to challenge single sex provisions and many had gone, meaning those we still had were mostly (not all, eg Masons) considered to be there for a good reason.

This may surprise you but I actually don't think any single sex provisions are there naturally . I think the women-only rights, opportunities, protections and spaces we have today exist as specific measures to mitigate the disadvantages we as women (original female meaning) face due to male entitlement, male violence and structural and cultural biases against women. l'd be more than happy to move towards a future where these things have gone away, making single sex provisions simply uneeded. I even recognise that in some ways the solution is part of the problem (eg we have separate toilet facilities today because it wasn't acceptable for women to relieve themselves in the open and because some men behave(d) badly towards women in the existing, de facto male facilities. But now that very separation has led to a lot of men fetishing women's toilets, meaning we continue to need to keep them out, and so it goes round).

But any fair change has to start with removing the need for the separation - the risk/disadvantage to women - first.

(1) And even with the hairdressers, women who have to cover their hair for religious reasons still need women-only spaces. You might say "well their religion shouldn't oppress them" and you might be right, but these women still have to live within their family and their wider social context, so unless you are going to solve that as well, by taking away their women-only provisions without adressing the need for them first, all you are really doing in practice is taking the opportunity to participate away from these women. So you see, even what on the surface look like trivial changes can be significant, which is why we need to go back, put the protections back for now and then move forward slowly, honestly and without preconceptions about what is needed and what is not.

I had a quick look at the Guardian article, the author is an academic in an American University (he seems to have practiced in law, in at least one genderwoo case). He's fully twaw, queer theory and, boy, does he like his scare quotes.

And, as usual, the article doesn't seem to apply to this country

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collections/photographs/spending-a-penny/

Why did you find this article convincing ?

It is contradictory. It says that the laws in the USA were brought in at a certain time. It doesn’t prove that the social norms were not already in place. Do you believe that those women working in the mills this article rightfully points out demolishes the notion that women were not already out in the workforce, were not using single sex toilets?

The article is written by a man. Arguing that other men should have access to female single sex spaces if those men say they are women .

This was not even well argued.

This article on American loos, sorry, restrooms also does not agree with the conclusions made in the Guardian piece up post. It even has genderwoo in it 😃

I'm assuming that the assertions about tw just wanting to pass is about urine because otherwise

https://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-segregated.html

I have not read the whole thread but came across people bringing up the idea that there have always been trans people, citing Indiginous American two-spirit people.

This would have very little to do with ‘trans’ as we are seeing it and shouldn’t be used to promote our own identity culture.

Toward an End to Appropriation of Indigenous “Two Spirit” People in Trans Politics: the Relationship Between Third Gender Roles and Patriarchy – culturallyboundgender

culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/toward-an-end-to-appropriation-of-indigenous-two-spirit-people-in-trans-politics-the-relationship-between-third-gender-roles-and-patriarchy/

Any person who declares female toilets are just to piss has lived a privileged life. It is always strange that when I list just how I have used a female public toilet in the past, posters pushing that toilets are just to piss in disappear. Almost like they realise just how ridiculous their argument was compared to reality.

Which things or descriptive terms are TRAs trying to keep segregated by, or relating to, sex?

Certainly not terms for people, sexual orientations, definitions of gay or straight (in Equality law as well as common use), prisons, sports, changing rooms etc.

Talking about reproduction tends to be strictly in the form of biological parts or "sperm and eggs". Not "the male and female body". But interested to hear about ones I haven't thought of (genuine question, not rhetorical! )

Can you give any examples of where TRAs are fine to use male/female/man/woman to correctly refer to the sexes?

A lot of people are 'muggles'. People who prefer the safety and security of group conformity over the challenge of free or critical thought, or logical consistency.

Transgender ideology was smuggled in on the bak of gay liberation, and people have accepted, without question, the supposed equivalence of the fight for gay rights and 'trans rights'.

'Non judgmentalism' is now a social virtue, and supporting that is the reluctance to use discrimination or to evaluate relative values. Being open and accepting is all that is required. No questions asked.

If you do all of the above it is only one step away from denying the realioty of sex and engaging in magical thinking. This encourages articles of faith to develop - and of course an article of faith is never scrutinised, it is just accepted as a given.

The levels of cognitive dissonance are off the scale - no wonder we have such a huge rise in the numbers of people suffering with extreme anxiety and other mental health issues.

Of course, added to the above is the cult of the individual....and the belief that the ultimate goal of everyone is to " realise one's true self" - aided by rampant consumer culture and big corporations and pharmaceuticals.

It is “Your True Self” as led by the nose.
A lot of life is.

I tend to agree that is has followed on in a fuzzy way from the gay rights movement. Not that supporting gay marriage logically requires that you take the next bizarre step of thinking that men are women, but LGBT groups and left-wing NGOs basically now have more moral authority than any Christian church. They gave that pronouncement to society and it worked on some people.

Progressives always need to be moving the line, or they aren't progressive anymore. Maybe they would have gone for polygamous marriage next, but apparently the next progressive goal is male rapists in female prisons.

I think the next progressive goal is to transcend the human/sexed body altogether. Babies born outside of a woman's uterus, or womb transplants, or ever more surrogacy for those unable/unwilling to carry their own children ( supposedly to free some women from the burden of being female). Transhumanism.

These measures will 'benefit' only the elites and priveileged classes, though - and everyone else will still be subject to the life of the sexed body on planet earth.