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.

This isn't a middle ground between trans activist and gender critical, it is gender critical. Or "TERF", as trans activists would put it.

Not just trans activists either. Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would consider you bigoted and transphobic for saying this.

unfortunately saying Men Are Men Women Are Women and Trans Are Trans is not seen as being middle ground, and there are plenty of people (loud people with political sway, not just randoms on Twitter) who think this is an extremist and bigoted view 🤷‍♀️

No I'm not in the middle. I've just read the judges summing up of Andrew Millers case and I'm firmly on the side of that poor 11 year old girl and all the other women and kids that are being harmed by this idiocy.

I think a lot of us have been where you are at some point and wanted to find a middle ground. Women are socially conditioned to "be kind" and want to be nice to other people. It was the behaviour of the trans rights activists that made me realise a middle ground is probably impossible. Even if third spaces were made available many TRAs have said they wouldn't use them and are insistent that TWAW in all circumstances, including sport. A middle ground can only work if people are willing to compromise, and I don't see any compromise from the TRAs.

Ah. But that's exactly the point.
Nobody is accommodating the reincarnation belief as a truth in law, education and healthcare.

It's the same point as I was making regarding the impact of accommodating the belief as truth regarding Christianity. But yes @OldCrone I think you're right that the reincarnation example is a better comparison in lots of ways because of the mind/body point. What it doesn't have, that Christianity does, is a history of it being accommodated in laws and culture as a truth. Each analogy is useful in different ways. I think I'll borrow your one sometimes too if that's OK! Full credit and royalties to you of course 😁

They've had to get rid of the new trans inclusive "open category" in US swimming because no one entered. It's not enough for the MTF people concerned. They don't just want to compete, they want to compete against women.

I want a unicorn.

And my boss's salary but without the management responsibilities.

What it doesn't have, the Christianity does, is a history of it being accommodated in laws and culture as a truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What is the relevance to gender identity?

Gender identity ideology has been "accommodated as a truth" in the mainstream for about 5 years. It's generally imposed on organisations in a completely top down fashion, spearheaded by a small number of activists within.

Probably about 7 years, I forget what year we're in now!

The OP never came back...

If this is a genuine post, I would say OP that the vast majority of us on here are in the middle, but have realised that there is no middle allowed. I started out wondering what the fuss was about and why we couldn't all get along, until I realised there is a small but significant cohort who don't want to compromise, who want what they want and don't care who that hurts (women). And too many people not paying attention who think this issue doesn't matter (because it hasn't affected them directly).

Incidentally, JK Rowling said pretty much what you have said, and look what happened to her: rape and death threats, branded a transphobic monster etc. etc.

That's what you get for trying to be reasonable.

Is it any wonder that women are angry?

The issue for me OP is what is a "trans person"?

I think this is a medical and scientific question, and should be treated that way. People with body dysphoria are suffering from serious issues with their internal image of self and sometimes identity related disorders. Those are what ought to be treated.

The evidence that transition is helpful isn't, scientifically, that great, and this kind of treatment should be approached with the same standards of care as every other medical treatment. Otherwise it's just medical malpractice and abuse.

So yeah, I think I do care about "trans people" but I think that concept in itself is often doing a lot of harm to those individuals, and in fact causes further dysphoria in the long term.

And with young kids and adolescents, doubly so, there is really no evidence this works, and I also think a lot of the sex dysphoria we are seeing now is almost iatrogenic, created by the medical establishment and it's bogus treatments.

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.

Pasting this follow up comment from @PriOn1 as I really think it's at the heart of the matter. Trans people have the right to believe in this or any other unfalsifiable belief such as reincarnation. I have the right both to disbelieve and express my disbelief in their belief system, which I consider regressive, harmful and based on sexism. Whether others consider it "useful" or not.

I don't know what happened to the formatting there!

I'm not that worried about what other people call me. I'm respectful of trans people and their right to identify and live as whatever gender they assert (and would celebrate their choices), and I understand that deliberately misgendering someone is offensive and I wouldn't do it personally. But I'm an old fashioned liberal and while this word is unfashionable, reciprocal tolerance for the differences in opinion that may still exist after that is the only basis for a civil society. You don't build a better society by winning every argument or extinguishing contrary opinion. And you can't philosophise paste genetics. That may be a painful truth for some, but truth none the less - at least for me.

”I'm respectful of trans people and their right to identify and live as whatever gender they assert”

But what does this mean for you, @Fahbeep ?

Do they get to identify into spaces that were originally intended to protect the opposite sex?

And need they only assert it? A man who asserts he is a woman should be allowed to be placed in a women’s prison or attend a women only rape crisis group?

I don't know the answer to be honest. I am sure there are a mixture of views between those who don't mind and those who really do. It's not the same as, say, mixed sex changing rooms. So, my point would be you start by listening to the opposing views and then you find a balance. And it always means compromise on both sides. I tend to use the easy access / disabled toilet myself as I'm ND and hate being with any other people while I'm using facilities, whether male, female or trans. But I overshare...

I sort of agree with you, but I think we've already moved past the point of philosophising.
We are already at a stage in some countries where Gender Self ID is the law, where gender is the protected characteristic, not sex. And where the consequences of that - men in women's prisons, sports teams, support groups etc. is being felt.
It's easy to say 'live and let live' if the outcome of that isn't affecting you directly, and it's also very easy to give away things that don't belong to you.

I do think we will have to come to some compromise, as to what that looks like who knows.

I'm respectful of trans people and their right to identify and live as whatever gender they assert

I can only respect that right if gender is decoupled from sex.

As long as gender exists in this "not the same as sex so trans people can exist, but exactly the same as sex when it comes to how they are accomodated" hinterland I cannot respect it, because to do so is to accept not just beliefs but real world actions that I consider misogynist and harmful to women.

Asking women to find a middle ground with misogyny is not a reasonable expectation.

Do you understand that there is a direct conflict of rights at play here?

In the context of a prison, or a rape crisis group, you have on the one hand a male person who identifies as a woman and feels very strongly that they need to be housed in a women's prison or allowed to join a women only support group, and you have on the other hand female prisoners and female rape survivors who feel just as strongly that they do not want the male person to be there.

Do you believe it is actually possible to strike a compromise between these two positions?

Probably having a massive existential crisis after realising they in fact are one of 'the baddies' too.

I honestly don't understand how it is possible to compromise.

It's literally a binary thing.

Either TWAW or TWANW.

Either way, someone is not getting what they want.

Consent isn't a compromise/majority type decision though, which is what causes the conflict here. Women do not all consent to mixed-sex spaces replacing single sex ones. Those women who do consent and don't mind/don't recognise any issues with mixed-sex spaces can't consent on behalf of those that don't consent and that would self-exclude if forced into mixed sex spaces.

Fahbeep The difficulty is no one who is TWAW want to accept the other viewpoint.

inknow everyone else is saying this better than me but this middle ground is not existing where it needs to be- which is why gyms and leisure centres are going with anyone who feels like a woman can use female changing rooms, prisons have been allowing men in with the women and sports women are losing scholarships in America.

There’s real collateral damage happening while we wait for the people who should be drawing some firm boundaries faff around saying “but both sides!” And “Be kind!” And “But intersex!”

I would like your optimism that everyone can be treated fairly but as others have said there is no middle ground between TWAW and TWAM.

Agree with Rudderneck