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.

Me too.

It would be good to see if Alpha's wording doesn't work for anyone. There are lots of different viewpoints here to consider.

Also "non male" has been co-opted by many TRAs, eg in the Green Party, to mean "women including trans women and non binary people of both sexes"

So cold hard biological sex would have to be explicit, IMO. As I said, I don't support pretending that males aren't male.

Being male is a factual descriptor. There is zero judgement in it. I hate to sound harsh but finding a descriptor upsetting is your problem, not a reason for literally everyone else to change their vocabulary.

Quite.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Why does it harm women if I'm not claiming to be female?

Lots of TRAs "don't claim to be female". Non binary people of both sexes, for one. The female ones have every right to use our spaces, the males do not.

That's why I think the words "born female" are about as clear as we can get at the current time.

I think there are people who experience gender dysphoria. I can appreciate that a transwoman who does could easily find the word "male" difficult.

Blaire White says "I'm a man" but not every transwoman is likely to do this. Blaire White also uses women's toilets. So as much as I admire what Blaire has done to raise awareness on the dangers of what's happening to children in relation to gender identity (and I think it's great that Blaire calls Blaire's dysphoria a mental health condition), I take huge issue with Blaire using women's toilets.

Whether it's "the intention of gender ideology to co-exists with recognising sex" doesn't impact conversations moving forward as long as boundaries are respected. Recognising someone's distress doesn't need to be at the expense of this.

Because you are claiming to be a woman. If woman doesn't mean female adult human what does it mean? How do protect women's rights if we can't define woman? Give us a simple definition of woman that includes some men without excluding some women or including all men. There are things that have not yet been done by a woman (walk on the moon, lead the Labour party etc) are we supposed to accept that the first 'woman' to do these things could in fact be a man? If we accept that a man can be a woman how do we keep sports or prisons for biological women? You personally may not want these things but many many TRAs do.

@Girlontherailreplacementbusservice

Apologies, I was unclear. I'm still talking about a potential compromise whereby people could opt into a third category to avoid being "male" while not claiming to be "female". Or vice versa - although the issue here is very much with female only spaces.

Obviously there are practical issues around this, but what do you think of the principle?

Put simply, if you are a woman, then by that definition, I am not. Either give me a definition of woman that includes you and me, but excludes other men, or explain what makes you more entitled to the word than me?

Whether it's "the intention of gender ideology to co-exists with recognising sex" doesn't impact conversations moving forward as long as boundaries are respected. Recognising someone's distress doesn't need to be at the expense of this.

What boundaries have been respected? We cant use male, female, man or woman because it a makes man with gender sad.

You cant even agree on signage.

The aim of these men is to force society to see them as women.

They are never going to be happy to be the only ones not allowed to go through the door marked 'women only' or 'no men allowed'. If that means eliminating all single sex spaces, thats what they will do.

Its not about saftey, or not identifying as men, or an alternate space, its about forcing society to see them as women.

Further up the thread Alpha said that, following lots of food for thought, it was clear that respecting the word woman (without including transwomen) was important.

I'm not sure what the problem is with the wording that Alpha proposed by building on what Margot wrote. I'm assuming that Margot and Alpha went for the word "female" because it's impossible for anyone to be born a woman.

Has anyone highlighted a problem with the wording? I'm happy to be corrected on that one if I've missed it.

I would also echo @IcakethereforeIam 's words that it would be great if Alpha could work on it i.e. beyond a discussion board in Mumsnet.

OK, so I think this conversation has got a lot more interesting compared to when it started.

The thread will be full up soon so I am going to add a final comment from me.

The OP was clearly not posting in good faith, claiming to be "in the middle". There has been a lot of discussion about whether there really is a middle ground and if so, where it is.

I think there is essentially no middle ground between "trans women are women" and "trans women are men". If you believe trans women are women you believe that what makes someone a woman is their gender identity and if you believe trans women are men you believe that what makes someone a woman is their biological sex. Nobody who is wedded to either of these positions is likely to be convinced to defect to the opposing camp.

From my point of view, I believe that trans women are men because for me the word "men" means "male people", and "male" is a biological sex, not a gender identity. I do not use the words "men" and "male" to hurt anyone's feelings; I see this as a simple statement of fact and I use these words for clarity. I lament the fact that so many really important words have been mangled and redefined in what seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth.

At the same time I can accept that using words such as "man" and "male" to refer to trans women may be hurtful. When the trans woman concerned is someone like Karen White or Isla Bryson, I couldn't care less about their feelings and will correctly sex them with impunity. Where the transwoman concerned is someone like @AlphaTransWoman, I feel a lot more uneasy about doing that. My intention is never to hurt people.

I find some of the objections to third spaces in this thread surprising and actually somewhat ideological. As gender critical feminists, we may prefer that everyone accepted their biological sex and used single sex facilities for their own sex without complaint. But that is not a realistic expectation. There are too many people out there who identify as transgender who consider this to be unacceptable, and they are not going anywhere.

In my view, the only way to get trans women to stop using women's single sex spaces, which I believe is what most of us here want, is to work with the members of the trans community who agree to work with us, and to say, "We hear you. You don't feel able to use single sex facilities for members of your birth sex. Many women don't feel able to use single sex facilities if transgender people who were born the opposite sex may be using them. Would you be OK with using additional gender neutral spaces if these were to be provided, so that the single sex spaces can be maintained as single sex? That way everyone is reasonably provided for and everybody has the opportunity to participate in society."

To me, that is the middle ground.

Opposing third spaces on the basis that you don't personally recognise the existence of a "third sex" or "people who are neither fully male nor female" strikes me as ideological. And that will never win people on the other side of the debate over. What is needed is a practical solution.

Earlier in the thread I linked to an article about Noah Ruiz, a trans man who was attacked in the US for using a women's toilet. Noah is female but presents as male. Noah's presence in women's toilets may legitimately be distressing for women, and yet Noah is clearly not safe in men's toilets. Since Noah apparently asked the owner of the park which toilets to use and was advised to use the women's toilets for his own safety, it seems likely that if a gender neutral toilet existed and he had been directed to use it, he would have done so.

So I can see the point of third spaces, and I think that this is where we are most likely to find some sort of middle ground.

'Woman' and 'female' are taken. They have actual definitions that people understand, that can be fitted on a badge. If you want to change their meaning start by giving us a new definition.
As no-one has managed to do this despite being asked a million times perhaps invent a new word. If for example, everyone knows that people can be male (men), female (women), temale (teman) (a person born male who wishes to be regarded as a woman) or shemale (sheman) (a person born female who wishes to be regarded as a man) then we are all using the same definition for words rather than trying to figure out if people are using sex or gender or a mishmash of both. I don't care what word is chosen but woman isn't available so if you won't accept man it's on you to find an alternative not us.

I don't think trans people are a hive mind.

Some of them, I think, would be happy to use third spaces and would be glad that there were finally spaces which no one was going to contest their right to be in.

Others, as you say, would continue to disrespect women's boundaries.

But I think this is how we defeat "be kind".

If society goes to all this effort to provide safe spaces for trans people, any sympathy for the ones who insist on using single sex spaces for the opposite sex is likely to evaporate very quickly.

Quite.

If a person is deeply distressed by factual reality, that distress should be recognised as what it is, a mental health condition that needs treatment (like anorexia, or religious obsession, both fairly closely related to gender feelings in the way they manifest).

The rest of the world should not be expected to reshape itself to conform to the delusions of the unwell.

Woman' and 'female' are taken. They have actual definitions that people understand, that can be fitted on a badge. If you want to change their meaning start by giving us a new definition.

I'm not clear where the words woman or female have been redefined in the wording that was proposed. I've also not seen any suggestion to change their meaning - quite the opposite. I saw post saying that the word woman should be respected (and by extension, the word female when then came in to the conversation)

I can see the point of third spaces, and I think that this is where we are most likely to find some sort of middle ground.
The problem is where there are third spaces or suggestions of third spaces those seeking validation still insist on choosing women's/female spaces. IamSarah isn't trying to ban TW from the rape crisis centre, just to have one group that is a single sex female only space. Along side the mixed sex single gender and the Trans group and the male group but nope, not allow women can have nothing.

I would further suggest that the unwell should be protected from acts of self harm (including surgery and messing with their endocrine systems) while they are under that delusion - not just while they are still children, but as adults. I realise that would damage a massively profitable industry, but it would prevent a lot of human misery.

I know anorexia has a very high death rate for a mental illness, but there are also many people who survive it and are able to live safe adult lives afterwards, as a result of MH interventions.

The third space is a red herring. If TRA wanted separate spaces, they would have campaigned for them. But they are too busy campaigning to make it easier for men to get female birth certificates.

Why would they want female id and the not be treated as if they were women and use womens spaces?

They talk about a third space, not because they want it or have any intention to use it, but as a distraction from us questioning why adult men are given female id by the state. We are being told it doesnt matter if men get female id, because they will stay out of womens spaces. Does anyone really believe that?

The idea that a man's dysphoria is so great that he cant have male id, but he will happily not use women only spaces? Bullshit.

That that particular wording it isn't redefining terms but Alpha repeatedly declares that they are a woman, India W declares that India is female. In a society where two groups are using the same word to mean a different thing it is pointless trying to use a word in the way one group recognise but the other group rejects. India would match right in because in India's world India is female.

We are being told it doesnt matter if men get female id, because they will stay out of womens spaces. Does anyone really believe that?

Where are we being told that in this thread? If we're being told that and I've missed it, I will happily join in pushing back.

If a factual description has that much of a negative effect on your mental health, you need help to find out why you find reality so distressing.

You must be able to see that trying to force the rest of the world to agree that you're 'not male' because you don't want to be male is never going to work.

You seem to want everyone else to participate in your fantasy that some people are neither male nor female, when this is untrue.

It used to be women and men, then we said female and male, then biological female and biological male.

Then Willoughby anounce that hes biological female.

What words do we use next?