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.

@AlphaTransWoman I’m interested if this question was asked with in a TRA forum what would the response be? Sorry I’ve asked you directly as I suspect you’re the best person to ask.

However I also ask op @piesforever are you going to ask this question within TRA forums also?

Or, is it only women who need to start being a bit nicer and not angry?

You are so right fabricstash.

I recently have seen a ‘kind’ poster dismiss the brutality of subjecting a teenager to artificial menopause through use of hormones and to a serious and brutal surgery such as double mastectomy as (paraphrasing), just treatment for gender dysphoria. They accepted poor outcomes for female people because they valorised the current affirming only treatment plans. They did this while labeling themselves as ‘kind’ and demonising those who disagree with this medical treatment as being acceptable for adolescents and some vulnerable adults.

I have often seen the same hypocritical misuse of the word ‘compassion’. I and others were accused of zealotry because we lacked compassion while we were pointing out the very real and documented negative impacts, many devastating, of exploiting women’s bodies for surrogacy.

The destabilisation of language has been the result of levering in meaning for words that are the opposite of the original intended use of the word. This destabilisation leads to meaningless communication. However, it does make those using those now ambiguous words feel morally better than others. It is a tactic though. It isn’t just words being destabilised, but also the attempts at destabilising science, laws and individual and society’s boundaries. That is the aim of queer theory and so far it has had some success.

"Sex specific sport"

I think most GC people feel this way.

Yup.

Well I’m shocked the OP hasn’t returned after popping in to tell us we’re all big meanies

like we haven’t heard “there must be a middle way& you’re all mean” a million times

OP if you’re genuinely interested in how we are where we are read this https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

I also think this board is middle ground.
The non middle ground would be something like 'all trans people are evil scum who deserve to be thrown out of society'. This is not where this board is at, nor is it where the law is at.
This board is 'live and let live, keep male bodies out of female spaces, protect children' - that's hardly extreme.

I agree, this tallies with the vibe I observe on this board.

However, I will hold my hand up and say I may be considered more extreme because I think we (society, government, definitely schools) should be doing more to actively inform people about why a belief of gender identity ideology is not a great idea. It relies on regressive stereotypes, it erodes safeguarding and its unhelpful for LGB people.

I am fully in favour of freedom of belief and freedom of speech but we need to be teaching children and adults to critically appraise belief systems and theories.

sorry OP, but the TRAs have now branded you a bigot.

are you slightly annoyed by this?

This is absolutely fantastic!!

👏

Probably an opportune time to mention the Pronouns are Rohypnol essay by a Mumsnetter from back in the day.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

whether I feel its safe to take part in some threads

Interesting word "safe". What exactly do you imagine will happen to you if you do?

I understand your argument, but “trans people” and “Christian people” are not used by society in the same way.

”Christian people” are fully understood to be people who hold to a particular belief system. I can get fully behind having rights for people who hold different belief systems from mine.

We are told however, that “trans” is something you are, not something you believe.

The demands they are making are based on that assumption: that this is something real that they “can’t help”.

For some, it may be true that this is something over which they have little power. Those with mental illnesses have rights as well and those should be extended to those transitioning and in distress.

But I return again to the fundamental problem that there is not a discrete group of “trans people” at the moment. The definition pushed by those demanding rights is not your definition. Laws were created based on your definition, but then changes to the definition were pushed and that was a deliberate act.

So define “trans people” however you wish, but I think the term is no longer fit for purpose, if ever it was. There are people suffering from gender dysphoria, some of whom are pursuing physical transition as a treatment, and yes those people need to have rights.

But I see “trans people” and “gender identity” as being made up concepts which were invented to describe inner feelings of some kind. Yes, some people believe in them, but they are not asking us to allow them to believe in peace. They are demanding access to groups and rights where they do not belong and demanding that others adhere to their beliefs. Moreover, as we see in the courts, the adherents to “gender indentity beliefs” are hounding others that do not believe in ways that are illegal.

Which is why most of the women here come to believe there is no middle ground: only appeasement.

re 'safe'. The only thing that happens on these boards is to have ideas and arguments challenged. Name calling isn't allowed. It is behind a keyboard so obviously nothing physical is possible.

People shouldn't be 'safe' from robust debate.

Not mine.
I saw it a couple of months ago, forgot about it and then got reminded again the other day. Great, isn't it?

There isn’t a middle ground.

I want sex segregated places like toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons. Places where it isn’t always safe to mix the sexes.

It’s not seen as an extremist view, despite most of us probably having at least one “lovely male friend/family member”.

Yet when it’s a man who ids as a woman we are classed as bigoted for not changing our feelings.

I want women’s sport to stay fair to women.

I don’t want anyone to lose their job, or face abuse for saying this. Neither do I want any trans people to lose their jobs for saying the opposite. It’s not the posters of Mumsnet trying to get people fired or punching people or sending death threats or posing with signs that urge violence against women.

I want kids to be supported and listened to- I want the fears and traumas they have to be explored rather than rushing them into something they can’t come back from. I accept some of those kids will be happier with trans identities for the rest of their lives. But some won’t.

I want my daughter, and everyone else’s daughters to be able to change for PE without boys being around, even if they are adamant they too are girls.

This sounds like middle ground to me, but it’s not because the main thing is I don’t believe men are women. I don’t even care if that’s what someone else believes- believe what you like but have the tolerance for my different opinion.

We don’t have that. I couldn’t say this on social media. But what is wrong with it? Please tell me how this makes me deserving of abuse.

This.

@piesforever Isn't that how most people think?

We are told however, that “trans” is something you are, not something you believe.

We are indeed. And from the perspective of someone who believes in gender identity, that would be a truth. Just as Jesus is the son of God from the perspective of a Christian. Yes it's a belief but it's a belief that it's a truth.

Roll back in history and to deny anything like that would be heresy. Even spelling God as god (analogous to not using preferred pronouns) would be. Laws were based on religious truths of the time, but this has shifted. It's perfectly normal to eat meat on Fridays these days, without being branded a heretic because you didn't choose fish.

It's not the belief that's the issue it's:
A) compelling that belief as a truth (school PHSE lessons, employers encouraging staff to share their pronouns etc)
B) using that belief to cross others' boundaries, where others may or may not hold the same belief (transwomen in sports, rape crisis centres, lesbian circles demanding acceptance etc)
C) children getting confused about whether they are in the right body, during puberty in particular for the huge uptick in girls being impacted.

Initially I was pleased when Rishi Sunak said the words about men and women. Now I've seen the backlash the Tories are getting and to me it was probably an overreach on his part. "I believe that there are two sexes. Some people believe they have a gender identity that is more important than their sex that was recorded at birth. Our laws, education and healthcare need to support both beliefs without enforcing one or the other" would have been better. The EA already does exactly this.

And no, that doesn't mean we should erase the word "woman" in healthcare etc. That word is already taken.

We could have an extra tick box on someone's health record to record a person's gender identity if they have one. Preferred pronouns can also be recorded but can't be enforced. They are simply preferred. That way trans people get the right health treatment (their actual biological sex is recorded) and an opportunity to request accommodation for dignity (the same as we might do for a religious belief e.g. allowing Muslim women to keep their hijab on during an examination or to request same sex care if that isn't possible).

The EA protects people who are undergoing or intending to undergo some kind of physical transition. That is a discrete group based on a medical procedure.

I does not protect a group called “trans people” who hold certain beliefs.

The EA protects people who are undergoing or intending to undergo some kind of physical transition. That is a discrete group based on a medical procedure.

I think it was originally intended to do this, but the concept of "gender reassignment" has become unworkably broad.

I absolutely agree, which is why we are no longer in any kind of middle ground.

The law as written is not being used as it was intended.

I believe that there are two sexes.

There's no need to qualify that he "believes" there are two sexes. There are two sexes. The belief in gender identity ideology is the irrational one.