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.

Exactly.

You wouldn't say that a man who wanted to have anal sex and his female partner who didn't want to have anal sex needed to compromise, would you?

I hope not.

I hope you would say that the woman had the right to say no to her body being used in a way she wasn't comfortable with.

And as another poster said, that's what this is about. Women's bodies being used without their consent. Because a women's changing room without any women's bodies in it is just an empty room, and a women's swimming competition without any women's bodies in it is just an empty pool.

Demanding to be in women's spaces includes the requirement that women should be in these spaces, otherwise they wouldn't be women's spaces. And often we have no choice in the matter. At work or at school, for example, we have a choice between using women's toilets, or not using the toilet all day. So we should have the right to say no to sharing these spaces with people who are not women.

@MargotBamborough I am sensitive to your point. Please do not mistake my liberal tendencies for a belief in equality of outcome, leading to tyranny for all. It is attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable that takes all debates in identity politics into dead ends. The compromises will not be winner takes all. They will be accommodations that both side can live with. I don't know what they will be, as that gets into detailed policy discussions above my knowledge and experience, but a good settlement is normally marked by everyone being able to live with it while being moderately unhappy with the arrangement. Probably requires a mixture of spaces being available with proper investment so that the space users can feel comfortable without having to come into contact/conflict with each other. Not claiming to have all the answers or the best opinion. Just offering one opinion.

OK.

But if one side's position is, "I am a trans woman and I want to be in women's spaces with women" and the other side's position is "We are women and we want single sex spaces without any trans women in them", where do you see this middle ground? Where is the compromise?

If by "a mixture of spaces" being available you mean a mixture of single sex and gender neutral spaces, what do we do about the trans people who have very clearly said that they do not want third spaces, they would not use third spaces, and that regardless of such spaces being available they would continue to use spaces for members of the opposite sex in accordance with how they believe they identify?

There was once no middle ground between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and I'm just talking about those engaged actively in the Troubles. And the refusal to compromise will always exist inside some (it is the essence of extremism), but we have to hope for better and avoid cynicism.

But those who believe "TWAW" refuse to compromise.

"Meet me in the middle", says the unjust man.

You take one step forward, he takes one step back.

Every time women agree to compromise, or society agrees on women's behalf that women should compromise, women lose out on something and then the trans lobby moves on to their next demand.

I think some people fundamentally don't understand what the movement is about.

Can't reply to everyone I'm afraid. Should be working! I would regard those who refuse to respect the Rule of Law as extreme. No doubt they will see themselves as conscientious objectors. So in the case of intransigent refusal to use established Third Spaces, and entering other single sex spaces without consent. I would want that treated as unlawful. I know DH are will be those who argue that makes me extreme. But laws stop us from doing all sorts of things for the benefit of others. I do not accept that the position of a trans woman is analogous to Rosa Parks, the black civil rights activist who sat in the white only seats. The trans person must accept that their rights are balanced with those of women, just as men must accept that there rights must be equally balanced with those of woman and trans people. I'll stop now though so thank you all for engaging with my thoughts. I know it won't be to everyone's tastes but nice to have a civil debate about it.

at the moment, in this analogy, the TRAs are one of these religions and will accept no solution which is not everyone else converting to their religion. they want domination and subjugation. the only valid 'compromise' is one which protects women's rights. anything else is oppression.

By compromise I meant that whatever the outcome, some people are not going to be happy.

Edited to add What I mean also is a move away from positions towards interests. Helen Joyce talked about this recently in a podcast and it was interesting. Focusing on our main interests, rather that whether we agree to use pronouns etc.

So my red lines would be single sex spaces, medicating of vulnerable children, and accepting that other small things maybe have to be ceded or compromised on.

I mean we can rant and rave about preferred pronouns all day (and I do) but people are already using them, it's already happening. So the rollback is going to be difficult.

@literalviolence is that true though of all trans people, or just some, who are noisiest.

I don't know the answer.

In my bad example, there is a difference between the IRA and Sinn Fein on one side, and the UVF and DUP on the other. There are always zealots using violence and unlawful means and moderates talking to each other. In the end, it's the moderates who make peace even if their core beliefs are forever fundamentally opposed to each other.

I'm not sure that meaningfully counts as a compromise.

That's not what a compromise is.

A compromise is when you come up with a solution that gives all or most people some of what they want, but not all of it.

For example, some people in your team want to have meetings every day and some people only want to have them once a week so you agree to have meetings three times per week.

That's not possible here. If the issue is single sex spaces, either you have single sex spaces for biological women which biological males are not allowed into, or you don't. Either way, some people are going to be unhappy. If you have single sex spaces then trans women are going to be unhappy because they won't be allowed into them. If you have single gender spaces on a self ID basis then trans women will be happy but many biological women won't be.

If your idea of a compromise is an outcome where some people aren't happy, you might as well say, "fine, let's have single sex spaces and accept that trans people won't be happy".

But that wouldn't actually be a compromise, it would be one side getting what they want and the other side not getting what they want.

It's true of the TRAs. There are some TW who know they're men, don't think they should be in women's spaces but those TW are not pushing for women to give anything up. The relevant group here are not moderates. They're male supremacists. How do you compromise with someone who will accept nothing less than full access to all women's spaces and all people pretending that humans can change sex?

Just seen your edit.

So your idea of a compromise is we use people's preferred pronouns but we don't allow them to use single sex spaces for the opposite sex?

TRAs would see that as rampant transphobia. I do think that people who want a middle ground don't understand the battle lines drawn by the angry men TRAs.

I don't think anyone would want preferred pronouns to be "rolled back", I think people are not wanting preferred pronouns to become compelled pronouns with the threat of legal action behind them.

If someone wants to express preferred pronouns, great, express away and be pleased if people comply. But don't force me to use them or have to make a declaration myself about pronouns.

I do. A man demanding to be called she is committing an act of male aggression.

@literalviolence that's what I'm saying. If it really was "preferred" pronouns, then it's a request not a demand and can be ignored. What's actually happening is a move to forcibly compelled pronouns and demands to acquiesce to the ideology and provide a statement about pronouns yourself. That is indeed an act of male violence.

For me, the whole TWAW thing is built on the false premise that women have a certain type of mind, and any social needs or challenges women experience flow from this rather than the sex of their body.

Any so-called "middle ground" that expects me to accept having this belief in a "womanny mind" accepted in law and imposed on my own identity as a woman is extreme, misogynistic and unreasonable.

There are so, so, so many things society codes as female that could equally well be open to and enjoyed by men. I don't think we should have to say that means these men are therefore women, I think we should say these things are no longer just for women!

But there are also some things, the things that are directly or indirectly linked to our sexed bodies, that can never be open to men because they do not have those sexed bodies. And these things we should not try and pretend can be achieved or experienced by men just to #BeKind.

But if we take out the parts of transwomanhood that are not connected to sex and make them available to all men, and the parts of womanhood that are connected to sex and can never be part of transwomanhood, what is left? Nothing. Transwomanhood is just a collection of sexist ideas about women.

But if we take out the parts of transwomanhood that are not connected to sex and make them available to all men, and the parts of womanhood that are connected to sex and can never be part of transwomanhood, what is left? Nothing. Transwomanhood is just a collection of sexist ideas about women.

Exactly this.

I don't think this is true. There is also a person left there, whose humanity should be seen.

I was like you OP then I met some very pushy trans women online dating acting very male. There is literally no way for me to meet other women who date women because men have invaded all the spaces I've found so far. And I've met a young trans boy who before transitioning was clearly a very vulnerable girl. Watching the impact of the kids around her and how she not getting care she needs as it's all put down to 'trans' has had me concerned.

Then my daughter told me there are boys using the girls toilet at her school (teacher rands outside and all the girls have to wait till the boy comes out- so not used at the same time but girls are loosing break time to wait on this boy when they already loose half beak to waiting in line for the toilet). I check the school policies amd saw it was a two day internal suspension for misgendering- I was ready to die on that hill defending my dd but they have changed the policy recently to remove that bit.

Theoretically I was middle ground but now if had multiple experiences I'm not even prepared to respect préfères pronouns. The young trans boy I use her new name and don't use pronouns because she's been told it's bullying if people call her a girl and I don't want her to feel victimised. When she has a meltdown because my kids called her a girl I say she has different beliefs to us and thinks she's not a girl use her name not 'she' or she will be upset-but that's the only concession I will make- and I only do that because it's a vulnerable child I don't want excluded. For adult men encroachment into women's spaces and rights? No absolutely not I will not be kind there I will avoid it and if forced I hope I would be strong enough to say 'he'.

@MargotBamborough

"what do we do about the trans people who have very clearly said that they do not want third spaces, they would not use third spaces, and that regardless of such spaces being available they would continue to use spaces for members of the opposite sex in accordance with how they believe they identify"

So they want to force their way into single-sex spaces, regardless of want the existing users want or need. They don't have the right to do this. I do not see how any transperson who thinks this is ok can actually feel like they identify with the opposite sex, since they clearly don't understand them at all.

What would you say about non-trans, common-or-garden men who thought they had a right to march into women's loos and women's changing rooms? How is this different?

Oh, and with the recent prosection of Andrew Miller/Amy George, who lived as a woman for several years, and got his young victim into his car while dressed as a woman - what if this "woman" insisted on use of women-only toilets, showers, changing rooms? Are we supposed to welcome him in? What if he followed your 10-year old daughter into the toilets?

Clue - some men behave like him. Some transwomen behave like him. Women, with a tiny tiny minority of exceptions, and even then usually in conjunction with male partners, do not behave like him.

Men are people and women are people.

If you take away everything connected to biological sex, what is left that makes someone specifically a woman or a man, as opposed to just a person?