Anyone in the middle?

[piesforever]

All I see on here is GC rants. I am in the middle, I support trans people but do agree they shouldn't take part in gender specific sport, and there needs to be more caution in "changing gender" for sure, especially hormones and surgery for young people. I do agree some are troubled or young people, who are hating puberty or have had some trauma. Let's support them overall though, it must be horrible whatever the outcome. Anyone else feel a bit of sympathy to both "sides"? In fact, why are there sides, we need to find common ground and help each other!! Instead of being furious all the time. It's not healthy.

OMG!! So I missed the post from the OP as it was deleted before I got to it.
Thank goodness you saw it @Helleofabore and broke it down.

Your responses to the points that the OP raised are excellent 👍👍👍👍

What the OP has clearly missed on her (I assume) own thread is the initial empathy for how difficult it is being in the middle ground, followed by one of the best (and at times toughest) conversations I've recently seen about this whole subject.
Perhaps there will be some selective screenshotting to show how "awful" everyone is but most people (clearly not the OP) who see it in context will be taken on quite a journey of discovery. If that's the OP's game - to gather screenshots - bring it on 💪

I think it's a shame that post from the OP was deleted.

It was very illuminating.

"Crazy women", indeed.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe the OP will take me up on my challenge to provide a link to where she has gone onto a trans activist forum seeking the "middle ground" and then said, "OMG who are the crazy trans people in here! Luckily I've never met a trans person like you in real life. You say you're just about equal rights for trans people and yet you think trans women should be able to compete in women's sports even though this is massively unfair to female athletes, and you don't think female rape survivors should have single sex support even though there is dedicated support for trans people. Thank goodness the majority of people in real life don't think like you. Trans people are supposed to support equal rights. You're not doing that. Goodbye!"

I am the fucking middle ground.

I don't believe it's possible to change sex and I don't believe men should be able to access the rights and protections set aside for women. That's it.

This is not an extreme view.

It's not an unexceptional view.

It is very standard reality based common sense.

Agreed deleting that post was a shame. Let's not hide the reality.

Yes, some screenshots carefully selected will be nice for friends on Twitter who I'm sure will ooh and ahhh pleasingly and provide the needed strokes. But women here reading it from end to end, and actually understanding the conversation and following the links and considering the points will get more insights than that.

Whoever has managed to convince people that 'there are two sexes, sex is immutable, and sex matters' is not 'in the middle' has pulled off a very effective con trick.

Agreed!

Yet.... If that original post was put on Twitter it would lead to the OP being branded a bigot and a transphobe. As was pointed out (empathetically of course) by several posters.

So the whole thread is either started on a trolling premise, and this really isn't the OP's true view, OR it's been started in good faith and the OP is going to get piled on out there in TRA land with views like this, being metaphorically decapitated and punched on Twitter or similar.

Breaking down posts that are bound for deletion or at least copying and pasting the relevant parts is a tactic I learned from the many wise posters before I came along. It preceded the quote function.

That's not the middle ground, that's just the ground. All of it.

The OP would never dare to take the "middle ground" to trans activist Twitter.

It is only women who are being coerced into meeting the trans rights lobby in the middle. Meanwhile, the trans rights lobby are furtively shuffling backwards, ready to request that women meet them in the middle again.

I've not rtff and perhaps it's just because of the knowledge of certain acronyms that I've gained from FWR but AIBU 'piesforever'? Ick!

Probably just an innocent coincidence 🤔

Yes, I really wouldn't be surprised if some turn up on Twitter at all.
I shall be looking out for them and will take great delight in countering them.

As much as I'm not a social media fan, I've actually quite enjoyed the challenge of distilling down what I want to say in long form in to the same middle ground message that represents my views. Mostly I post in a short form version of exactly how I write here but I am prone to the odd bought of sarcasm 😁 I'm yet to walk away from a conversation that has some actual substance and I only close it down (sarcastically of course) when all that's left is a whole load of insults being flung at me. Obviously I'm very glad that the blunt hardliners like KJK and Glinner are there too of course.

It is amazing.

I suppose if the thinking is one side - no men get to be in womens spaces, the other - all men get to be in womens spaces, the middle ground will be seen as some men get into women spaces.

They arent seeing it as womens rights to single sex spaces versus no right to single sex spaces. Either women have that right or they dont, a compromise is impossible.

I had that passing thought too but I settled on the idea that it was just a coincidence and that in reality, pies weren't actually just small PIEs.

How about clothing? Should the right to wear dresses be restricted on the basis of biological sex?

To be fair, I’m a fan of lower-case pies, especially cheese and onion. Pie used to be a very happy, innocent word. I wish it hadn’t been ruined by repulsive perverts.

Agreed @ArabellaScott and @ZuttZeVootEeeVo

For me, the compromise I would make (stated up thread) is that I would support the provision of third spaces without data that shows why transwomen are more at risk in men's toilets than anyone else in men's spaces (based on race, disability etc) i.e. I would listen to transwomen's concerns and support this. Initially on a local trial basis only to prove it wasn't a waste of public funds.
But there is absolutely no compromise to be had on letting some transwomen in to women's spaces based on X, Y, Z. That's a hard no.

I think that there is a journey for some people. I admit I even believed it for a brief moment until I tried to defend it and then realised I could not.

That position can be worded 'there has to be a way to allow everyone to get what they want'. I very quickly realised that there isn't. It then comes down to 'there has to be a way to allow everyone to get what they NEED'. Hence when safety is discussed, the need is that yes, male trans people need to be safe, but what does that actually mean. It doesn't mean using the female single sex spaces. That is a 'want' not a 'need.

Hence, most of the discussions that we have here are based on need fulfilment. It is seen as mean and by some extreme posters, hateful, because some people see the world as seeing 'wants' needing to be fulfilled. After they play through all the scenarios (often through robust discussions forcing them to articulate how their solution works, or the outcome of their lack of solution), or they see studies or news reported of the consequences of ignoring the detail they called hateful discussion, they then start to harden their stance.

But, they hate being reminded that they too are now becoming like those they derided, admonished, abused, or demonised. They hate it with a passion. So, you end up with posters such as the OP. There are a number on MN, less so on FWR but you end up with them on threads outside of FWR. They are the ones calling us zealots lacking compassion while admitting that they agree partly. They will say they agree in the 'extreme outlier cases' but then they cannot draw the boundary of when something becomes 'extreme'. They react because of the dissonance the reality of their position starts to cause them.

Often, it takes bluntness to help people coalesce their thoughts one way or another. It is a catalyst, just like the court cases are in freeing up speech and thought.

It isn't.

Of course, the reality is that as soon as you allow some men into women's spaces you are actually allowing all men into women's spaces. Because there is no way to grant some access but keep others out.

So this is still not the middle ground.

How could anyone stop a person wearing a dress based on that person's sex, and why would they want to?

Weird comment!

Males wear and have worn dresses in various cultures for various reasons throughout history. Currently it is mostly people who believe in trans ideology who think dresses automatically = woman. Perhaps some very conservative people agree.

Feminists disagree with the imposition of gendered stereotypes (whether by conservatives or gender idealogues) so obviously wouldn't care if male people want to wear dresses.

@DeanElderberry

Sadly, they do just that in some parts of the world (eg Dubai).

Also, until about 60 years ago it would have been very difficult, though not technically illegal, for someone in this country to be accepted if presenting as female if they appeared to be biologically male. So I don't want to go back to the bad old days.

Hi Alpha, I'm genuinely glad you're back. I have been hoping that you would be because I think it's important to have lots of different balance in the voices here. We get plenty already - perhaps you saw the robust debate in the recent pages? - but your voice adds something different to the mix. I do hope you've read the thread and I also hope I didn't cause any offence with my summary views of the AMA thread. I think it's on page 20ish if you haven't read it. TL:DR (from my follow-on comments) I did think your stereotyping was misogynistic, but that it was unintended. I did appreciate you engaging. I still take a hard line on no transwomen in women's spaces but I understand that you have a belief that you are a woman and that this helps you understand yourself (I got that last bit from your comment about finally smiling at yourself in the mirror).

To answer your question.... Nobody should be prevented from wearing a dress. No woman, no man, no transwoman, no transman, non-binary etc etc etc. But to keep everyone safe and give them dignity and remain free of suspicion - putting on a dress doesn't change someone's sex, even if it aligns with their correct gender identity.. so it inherently raises suspicion if someone is identifying their way across other people's boundaries based on a belief that they hold - there are segregated spaces in place which are there because of statistically shown risks. Not everyone believes transwomen are women, so to presume that they do (and to use this belief to enter women's spaces) is unfair to women.

I'm not sure of the link between this comment and the quoted post?

Anyone can wear what they like, can't they? Dresses aren't part of the rights and protections set aside for women to ensure equality of access and to meet specific sex based needs.