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.

Yes, it’s not the same as “I believe/don’t believe in God”.

Two sexes is observable fact.

'Let's support them overall'

Who is 'them'? Bit othering. Do you means 'trans people as a group'?

If it helps to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with people who choose TQ+ identities. I'm all for people living however makes them happy if it doesn't trample anyone else's freedom to do the same in the process, and absolutely all for breaking gender norms and stereotypes.

I have a serious problem with the behaviours seen very frequently by the TQ+ political lobby and its supporters . Many of those whose behaviour I have a serious problem with because of its impact and appalling view of and treatment of others and seeing them as subhuman and ok to threaten with injury and death as well as removing their equality of access, safety and representation in society are not themselves people with TQ+ identities.

It is plain that many non TQ+ people are rabid about TQ+ politics because they see it as an anti-woman, anti-homosexual and anti-child safeguarding political movement that is meeting their own personal needs. Whether this is to shout and threaten without having to feel bad about it or have self control because it's currently fashionable to think it's ok and doesn't make you a bad person to be hateful and prejudiced and threaten to kill people so long as you only do it to the right currently dehumanised group (same argument used by Nazis and slave owners incidentally) or because removing women's rights, and increasing the rights of male people to use women and children particularly in sexual ways is a useful thing to them, who knows. The evidence is suggesting it varies from person to person. But it's very naive at this point to still be blindly buying into the rhetoric, or to not know about things basic to safeguarding, or that incelism is a thing.

It's like buying into the emotive idea that when someone shouts 'this is about LGBT+ rights' they mean they are talking about the diverse voices and feelings and rights of all LGBT+ people, when in fact when you look or ask questions, they mean only the LGBT+ people who want what is useful to them in the moment, and they are absolutely not wanting to protect the rights of, for example, homosexual women to say no to sex with male people and be homosexual. Emotive blanket terms are used a great deal for emotional leverage and manipulation, relying on a general public who love sentimental nicey things and not to have to think about things that are complicated.

This non TQ+ themselves in large numbers but very very politically active group have also, when you look into it, often excluded people with TQ+ identities who share experiences or views that are not useful to their political agenda. I have seen first hand on threads how TQ+ people are spoken to by those speaking for this political lobby if they dare to say things like 'but women need spaces and access too'. You think the 'die in a fire/kerbstomp/rape with a barbed wire baseball bat' stuff is disturbing? You should see what is said to those TQ+ people. And detransitioners.

I am in essence passionately standing up for religious tolerance, and that different beliefs and lifestyles must be allowed to live alongside each other. I do not want anyone forced to say 'I believe x', and would never do that to another.
I do not want anyone without an accessible, safe space or without privacy and dignity. And I believe that this should be equally extended to all and not just the current special privileged group, and that society should not be broken up into the givers and the takers, because there is no way that will ever end safely or well for anyone, TQ+ people in particular.

This means that while I do not believe a male person should be forced to deny their own personal belief that they have a gender - in the same way I don't believe I should be forced to deny my perception of the reality of sex - if I am being harmed by a male person who is forcefully informing me of his right to harm me, remove my access, require my compliance, because he insists I must conform to his belief that he is a woman? Then how can you justify tying my hands that I may not say 'no, you're a man' to defend myself and my equality and needs? Why must I 'be kind' which in this sense has nothing whatsoever to do with kindness and has to do with not resisting, concealing my distress, sacrificing myself and acting as his compliant victim in a very unhealthy and unethical way, when he has no responsibilities whatsoever towards me? You're asking me to comply with abuse. Why would a good person wish this or think it was ok?

I also believe that any male who insists that they can only be happy and have their 'rights' if female people's equality is sacrificed and they have the right to use that female whether or not she consents, is a person with a very serious problem, who absolutely should not be indulged in their very distorted sex based difficulties with women.

How a male person identifies is irrelevant to how I feel about unacceptable, harmful behaviour. There is no male I'm willing to indulge in this more than another.

The issue is not the existence (or not) of mental gender. The issue is conflating it with sex.

The only way forward is to see clearly that these things are entirely different, and there is in fact no moral, legal or practical argument for repurposing sex-specific language, rights and identity to support genderist concepts.

The circle of "a woman is someone with a specific body and any kind of personality" and "a woman is someone with a specific personality and any type of body" cannot be squared. Attempting to do so unavoidably damages female people by reducing our reality and the way we are allowed to understand and describe it to only those aspects that can be appropriated by men.

No idea what you're talking about, OP.

What you are describing is being gender critical.

If you "support trans people" but also agree there need to be single sex spaces and sports and more safeguarding in transgender healthcare then as far as trans activists are concerned you are a big old TERF.

Also, no one is "in the middle" because there is no middle.

It's pretty much a binary thing. Either you believe a trans woman is a woman etc or you don't.

If you don't think trans women should be competing in women's sports, that's a big clue that you don't believe they are women.

I work with young people, many of whom are neurodiverse, some of whom are gay.

It is precisely because i care for them that I oppose this ideology.

Sounds like you've not read much on this board OP, despite starting your own thread.

The idea that there's always a middle is wrong. We see this in lots of situations. The GC position IS the middle. We're not demanding all women enclaves, towns, cities, where no men can ever enter.

Two sexes is fact in all mammals. In terms of protecting women's rights this has been framed as a belief but it's not, it's a fact. It's an even more well evidenced and immediately obvious fact than that the earth is not flat and that gravity is real. It's WAY more evidenced and clear than that human made climate change is happening which is accepted as fact (rightly in my opinion). Unbelievable we're here.

Most older transsexuals know this - after all, if there weren't two sexes there'd be nothing definite to trans to or away from. However, the gender zealots like the OU staff on display this week in Watford are creating an incoherent belief system with no basic logic that confuses and undermines safeguarding for children. Mainly to gain themselves power, because it's definitely not in the children's best interests.

In case it helps with clarity, I am already doing a lot in the 'being kind' way by talking about 'my own beliefs' and 'male people', because as much as I respect that a male person may have a genuine belief that they are internally a woman, the bottom line is that the reality is in front of me that they are a man with a belief. If this makes me transphobic, then honestly I am not any more distressed by this than if you called me a sinner or an infidel for saying I did not believe in your deity.

I am happy to respect and be kind to someone living their belief which means so long as they do not inflict their belief on me, or try to exert it as a reality in a way that harms my freedoms and access or those of others, I will not need to point out reality in ways that they will find upsetting.

This just comes within clear limits, I am not going to sacrifice myself or others, or pretend that reality does not exist, because someone with a belief would find it too upsetting.

And OP, you yourself say you have internal limits on how far you are prepared to go along with a male person's belief that they are a woman before the harms to others must require a boundary: for example that women's sports should be for biological women only. You feel the same way yourself.

I'd also add that TQ+ people are equally free to 'be kind' to me and others by respecting that other people don't share in this belief and also need access and equality. And permitting alongside services that would mean we could all live in peace the way we wanted without any 'ranting' required.

Yes, I would really appreciate it if TQ+ people could be kind to female rape survivors by recognising that there is a legitimate need for female only rape crisis support which is not inclusive of male people, however they identify, and that as long as everybody has access to at least one group or service which does include them, that is enough.

TWAW and TWANW if anyone can point out the middle between that I'd appreciate it. Its a simple yes/no question, there isn't a middle.

People who believe they feel like the opposite sex or neither sex exist, they are referred to as trans. They are and always will be the same sex, if they feel unable to access facilities for their own sex for any reason then they need to request suitable facilities for themselves, suitable facilities is not using things designated for the opposite sex.

All people irrespective of sex, gender, beliefs should be treated with respect, no one should be discriminated against.

The comparison with religious beliefs is often used on here, but I think using Christians as a comparitor with "trans people" is the wrong comparison. A better comparison to my mind would be "reincarnated people".

Some people believe in reincarnation. It's even a part of some religions to believe this. If I say I don't believe in reincarnation or that "genuinely reincarnated people" don't exist, I'm not saying that people who believe in reincarnation don't exist. I'm not saying that the people who believe they have been reincarnated don't exist, I'm just saying that I don't believe they are genuinely reincarnated.

A trans identity seems to me to be very similar to a belief someone might have that they have been reincarnated. Both are about the mind or soul being separate from the body so that it can be born into a body. Both require a belief in such a soul.

If we could move away from the idea that not agreeing with someone’s self perception is the same as wanting genocide well, that’d be great.

The comparison with religious beliefs is often used on here, but I think using Christians as a comparitor with "trans people" is the wrong comparison. A better comparison to my mind would be "reincarnated people".
I also think it’s a bit like people who believe in ghost- I’m happy for you to believe ghosts exist but also if my lights start flickering I’d like to be able to buy a new light bulb without abuse or being told I have to have an exorcism, if it’s all the same.

Some people believe in reincarnation. It's even a part of some religions to believe this. If I say I don't believe in reincarnation or that "genuinely reincarnated people" don't exist, I'm not saying that people who believe in reincarnation don't exist. I'm not saying that the people who believe they have been reincarnated don't exist, I'm just saying that I don't believe they are genuinely reincarnated.

A trans identity seems to me to be very similar to a belief someone might have that they have been reincarnated. Both are about the mind or soul being separate from the body so that it can be born into a body. Both require a belief in such a soul.

Excellent analogy.

It's not us making the "sides". It's men who have highjacked the issue of the rights of a tiny tiny group of people who do need special consideration, in order to remove the rights of women and girls.

I'll add that I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I technically believe that the existence of god is unknowable. Gender identity ideology, based on unfalsifiable "possessing an essence of woman/man" also falls into that category. I don't believe in it because I'm not convinced by any of the flimsy scientific evidence I've seen, and I don't think the people who have it as a belief are particularly reliable witnesses. I might be wrong about this, as with anything of this nature, but it's just another Russell's teapot type metaphysical construct to me.

It is, and this is one of the reasons I love Mumsnet. There are a lot of smart women here, bouncing ideas around and periodically someone will come up with an argument I hadn’t considered.

Where did @piesforever get to?

Indeed, but in the case of gender it's not just the belief, it's the demands the belief is used to justify.

It's as if a person who believes they are the reincarnation of your grandpa were to demand this belief means the law must be changed so they are legally and socially recognised as your grandpa and entitled to take ownership of all your grandpa's possessions.

Your actual knowledge of your grandpa is not considered relevant.

Well that's a novel approach! Stop fighting and start meeting in the middle eh?

Genius. Someone alert the press columnists, the bewildered politicians and the hapless public servants. Be sure to mention nuance. Over and over.

I don’t think it really matters if pies has gone - just think of the lurkers! It’s good for them to see where the middle ground lies as it puts paid to all the “there’s bad on both sides” nonsense that fools a lot of newcomers to the debate.

The middle ground is respect and kindness towards trans people, live and let live, while recognising that women need their own stuff because sex matters. Also, gender ideology shouldn’t be pushed on to vulnerable children. Believing in a gender identity is absolutely fine, but compelling others to believe is not.

Nobody on these forums wants to hurt or harm trans people. They are free to do what they like as long as it doesn’t impact anyone else. But as PPs have noted, if you start talking about creating additional gender-neutral spaces and sports categories etc, you’ll be accused of Terfery and bigotry. The middle ground is ‘literal violence’ to certain trans rights activists. They want acceptance without exception, no debate, TWAW in all circumstances. So their hardline approach means TW can’t be excluded from female prisons, rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, lesbian dating nights, women’s sport categories… you name it, if it was set up for women, it has to be for TW too.

I agree .

Yes quite right . Like Helen Joyce said they shout down or back out of the chance to debate it .

Me. When the culture war fades, consensus will emerge based on the facts. Women are Women, Men are Men, and Trans are Trans. You cannot defeat genetic biology, but you can treat others with respect and courtesy and on an equal civil footing. There are extreme people on both wings, but moderates will win in the end. We always do. Once the facts are accepted, policy compromises and stop lines can follow.