Believing in gender is a bit like believing in God

[Flowerypot]

New to this forum so apologies if I'm wording things clumsily.

I've been thinking about how to articulate how I feel about sex/gender without explicitly saying trans women aren't women, women don't have a penis etc. Lots of stuff has come up at work on this recently and we're a very 'be kind' organisation - lots of pride stuff, trans colleagues, colleagues with trans kids talking openly about that.

Does anyone else feel about gender how they feel about believing in God or religion? It's a concept not rooted in scientific fact - it's just something people believe in, right? And you can respect that but no religious beliefs trump protected characteristics etc

For example at work they're encouraging us to state our gender as well as race/ethnicity and there is no option to state 'none' like there would be with religion and I think there should be. The best option is 'other' but that doesn't really work for me.

Not sure what I'm asking really. Grateful for any thoughts!

I think there are a lot of people who find themselves between being GC and TRA but neither side acknowledges the existence of a middle ground

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't.

https://www.tiktok.com/@alannastarby/video/7014118140959444229

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

I can't speak for other posters, but can answer these points on my own account. These issues have been discussed on these boards since long before the tide started to turn against gender ideology. At the time, it seemed FWR women's perspetives were lone voices in the wilderness. Serious safeguarding issues were raised here. The women who raised them were banned from the site.

Since media attention has focused more and more on the issues raised here years ago, every single concern about what this means for women and children in terms of the erosion of their rights has come to pass. Sometimes in even worse ways than anticipated. Women have been hounded out of their jobs, threatened and harassed in their own homes. We've seen what happened when we made moderate points or suggested compromise (aggression, cancellation, threats made against so-called TERFS).

This all started from a position of many people here being LGB allies, LGB themselves, and an embracing of the 'live and let live' approach.

It wasn't good enough, and it will never be good enough.

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this?

The hell I would. The more I've seen this gratuitously sexist persecution of women who dared say 'no', the more my position against the TRAs has hardened. To the point where I'm furious, and will fight them in any way I'm capable of without putting my livelihood at risk.

This is their doing. Not mine.

Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

I no longer give a shit who 'sees the light', provided our policies and law makers do, and court cases continue to be resolved in the favour of women who have been persecuted by this invidious movement.

TRAs wanted 'no debate'. As far as I'm concerned, they can have it.

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't.

Yes. This is the heart of the matter, however people choose to dance around it.

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

What does happen? Do they get sacked? Do they get punched in the face? Or do they just receive considerable challenge to their world view?

GK Chesterton (Father Brown stories) once wrote that people who didn't believe in God would believe in anything.
Sometimes.i think that is what is happening today. People are scurrying about trying to build a belief system since

...since God belief collapsed. Just write none.under the box and request that 'none'' should always be an option in future.

We can talk about accommodations and details, but at root the arguments contain a very basic disagreement - two positions that are not really able to compromise.

Either men can be women; or they can't

I don't think its necessarily that simple. I think it comes down to how much the differences between women and transwomen matter. I don't think many believe that transwomen are literally the same as women but I think some people believe the differences don't matter so they should therfore be treated the same.

It is that simple.

There aren't any similarities between these males and women. It's purely an ideological construct.

What are they identifying with, exactly?

Of course it's 'that simple'.

Homo sapiens are a dimorphic species. Our sex is ingrained into every single cell in our bodies. It's biologically, genetically, anatomically impossible for humans to change sex. We are all one sex or the other, including people with DSDs who are constantly being dragged into identity politics to prove the unsubstantiated point that sex is a 'spectrum'.

Trans women are men. I, for one, am sick of pussyfooting around the fundamentals and being railroaded over and treated with contempt for the 'privilege'. The emperor's naked, and in far too many cases is swinging his todger for full public consumption, irrepective of their lack of consent.

The TRA soundbite 'Trans Women are Women, No Debate' was disseminated under good advisement. Because as soon as the debate starts, the whole empty statement collapses on its arse.

Presenting as you want to, living as you want to and not being persecuted or discriminated against for doing so is a fundamental human right. Coopting the rights of other potentially vulnerable groups - who need their own spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity - is not.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts.

'The TRA soundbite 'Trans Women are Women, No Debate' was disseminated under good advisement. Because as soon as the debate starts, the whole empty statement collapses on its arse.'

Yep. The entire movement has 'Trans Women are Women' as its mantra. That is the rally cry and what they insist on establishing, on coercing people to chant.

'I don't think many believe that transwomen are literally the same as women but I think some people believe the differences don't matter so they should therfore be treated the same.'

This is precisely the same as saying that there are no differences that matter between the sexes.

Which then leads on to the outcome that women can have no legal protections. Which is why we see all the protections and services and structures set up to try to help women achieve equity - political representation; safety and dignity in public life; initiatives to address inequalities and disadvantages faced by women due to their reproductive burden - being dismantled. One by one, we are seeing them all admit men, and gradually lose their whole meaning.

Women's sport, spaces, toilets, hospital wards, female HCPs, literary prizes, colleges, grants, clubs, Women's institute, the Girl Guides, dating apps, lesbian groups, changing rooms, women's prisons, political initiatives, craft circles, book groups, feminist organisations. Every one has been changed from its original purpose as a thing set up to help women and girls achieve equity, in a world weighted heavily in favour of the stronger, larger, more dangerous sex, to something that now has to admit men, and is therefore providing no help or support or assistance in addressing inequality.

Feminism and much of our recent (past century) liberation has depended on openly and explicitly acknowledging the differences between the sexes, and acknowledging that they do matter. That women face disadvantage due to their sex.

Genderism destroys it. It makes feminism obsolete. It renders our language meaningless, removes our ability to protect ourselves, and abandons women to the status of second class citizens who depend on the mercy of men to survive.

It might look vaguely pretty on the surface, but a project that seeks to remove all of women's rights and protections is dangerous as fuck. It's depressing how easy it has been to reverse all women fought for.

I also don't think that's it's possible to change sex. But I think that if we are to beat the TRAs and come to a sensible solution that is fair to all we need to make sure we are arguing the right points. I think that arguing about whether or not transwomen are women is a distraction.

Surely it's better to focus on instances of harm to women because of their presence (eg in sports or where women are undressed and vulnerable).

How are you going to discuss that if transwomen are women?

The idea that a tw is a woman isn't some side issue, it's the whole issue.

I guess we see the issue differently then. I think the whole issue is much much bigger than that.

Also, don't forget, I'm broadly on your side. I don't disagree with what you think but the way we currently approach the subject clearly isn't working. If we want to push back effectively get women's spaces back we need to do something different don't you think?

I think it comes down to how much the differences between women and transwomen matter.
As with the differences between women and other men, they matter in situations where women are vulnerable to those differences - men, including those who identify as women, are bigger, stronger, and more predatory.

This has been long established, and resulted in safeguarding via sex-based segregation where those differences matter. Gender ideology seeks to demolish that safeguarding - asking women to reconsider the matter in response to that ideology, is part of that campaign.

Surely it's better to focus on instances of harm to women because of their presence (eg in sports or where women are undressed and vulnerable).

How are you going to do that if the mantra is TW are women?

Those women over there can do x but those women over there can't?

And when the riposte is that if they are all women, why can't those ones do something the others can? What are you going to say? How are you going to justify your stance?

I think things are actually working pretty well, considering where we were say five or six years back.

What is your proposal? How would you go about keeping women's rights protected in law, while men can get a certificate that changes their legal sex?

The gender critical side on this forum always resort to insults over a debate. I'm very much trans women are women when it comes to day to day life.

I also think the best way to encourage equality for everyone is to totally disregard gender. Look to F1 men and woman can compete side by side yet we are celebrating woman's football being on the TV but not playing mixed sex games. If you look at characteristics like height it's actually ethnic origin that gives you the biggest difference not sexual genotype, yet we openly have world cups and olympics.

I'm really not bothered about seeing a man at a urinal so single gender toilets aren't a concern for me (really common in France).

The more we shout that woman need protection (maternity leave, single sex space, menopause support etc) the more requirements are put in and the more likely it is people will be discriminated against.

Saying an argument is silly isn't an insult.

Your subsequent arguments are utterly ridiculous; this also isn't an insult.

I'm really not bothered about seeing a man at a urinal so single gender toilets aren't a concern for me (really common in France).

That’s nice for you that you’re not bothered, but can you not see that other women might be bothered, and that their concerns are valid? How does a rape victim feel when she has to share a toilet with males? How does a Muslim woman feel when she has to share a toilet with males? Does a mum with a four-year-old daughter want her child to see a grown man weeing in a urinal?

Does the fact you don’t mind sharing toilets with men give you the right to dismiss other women’s discomfort over it?

So you want to do away with gender, and for women to stop banging on about the menopause and maternity leave as you think it ultimately disadvantages them and leads to discrimination. In many areas of life, it’s true that sex doesn’t matter - women are free to get high-flying jobs and become company directors / prime ministers / whatever. But women and men do have different challenges based on their sex. The menopause, for example, has been really poorly understood for a very long time because women’s healthcare has never been a top priority. Why would you want to pretend the menopause doesn’t happen? Why wouldn’t you want employers to understand more about the menopause and how they can support their female staff and ensure they can keep on working?

It's similar believing in god if your country is run by the religion. Laws are from the religion, society expects your compliance. 'Blasphemy' is punished.

I think being GC may be similar to how it is being non religious/the wrong religion in such a country.

But in the uk where I am. And I'm a Christian. No not the same. Most people challenge my faith and faith is insulted and mocked publicly. I'm not an oppressed minority as I don't really suffer more than a bit of mockery for my faith and I'm protected under law from discrimination. But I'm definitely a quiet minority. Gender followers I don't think get laughed at in the same way, perhaps they do but they get support and praise from those not in their group in a way a god person doesn't really. Their views are supported in law and pushed in schools, mine are prohibited and kids taught to question (rightly so not questioning is unwise). The point of my faith is love and to treat everyone I meet with love and kindness to help and care etc. to be a good person. I think this is the case with most monotheistic religions? (May well be twisted by men to be oppressive but the root of it is in good intentions) yet I would argue the root of gender religion is looking inward it's selfish self-centred and actively harmful to others.

And actually I think to believe in god really does require faith. But to believe in gender there is loads of 'evidence'. But I'm of the view gender is a social construct. It's definitely real to me but it's fucking harmful and it's not innate it's forced on us.

So yeah loads of similarities they even have their commandments and sort of their own Lord's Prayer "TWAW my existence is not up for debate etc". But religions are about serving god by serving other people, they are often twisted by evil people definitely but they are not inherintly about the oppression others for your own gain.

What is your proposal? How would you go about keeping women's rights protected in law, while men can get a certificate that changes their legal sex?

My proposal is that an endless conversation of "transwomen are women" "no they're not" on repeat isn't particularly helpful. But focusing discussion on where there is evidence harm to women due to trans ideology might be better.