First time poster - question about GC beliefs

[lovelycosyslippers]

This is my first time posting on this board. I am trying to work out what my position is in the trans/gender debate.

If you hold gender critical beliefs, do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body, and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex), possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery? Is this a coherent position to hold?

Or do you believe these people should not ever be supported to live as the opposite sex? That doing so is always wrong?

Hope this question makes sense!

I wouldn't have a problem with that provided that there had been adequate safeguarding in respect of the hormones and surgery.

The trouble is that the number of male people who say they identify as women but have had no surgery at all and feel entitled to use women's spaces is a lot higher than the number of those who have had all the surgery and make every effort to "pass" but still stay out of women's spaces out of respect for women's rights.

How do you feel about a non Native American person wearing clothes usually associated with Native American stereotypes, going by a name generally associated with Native American stereotypes, performing actions generally associated with Native American stereotypes, and undergoing surgery with the aim of 'passing' as a Native American person to a casual observer and alleviating distress they feel from being born a race other to the one they would have preferred?

If an individual did these things but stopped short of applying to be accepted into Native American reserved jobs and roles, or to speak for Native American people for example - would you be ok with that?

Would you expect actually Native American people to be ok with that?

It would be ok to this GC feminist, there’s not a manual that we sign up to so I can’t speak for everyone. I’m happy to acknowledge and celebrate a trans woman as a trans woman - name, clothes, whatever (hormones and surgery should have suitable safeguards). Gender is a social construct and therefore we are free to reconstruct it. But where protections or provisions are on the basis of sex, they remain on the basis of sex which is immutable.

If an individual did these things, but stopped short of entering single sex only spaces or competing in single sex sports, for example - would that be ok to a GC feminist?

Sure. So long as they don't expect other people to be infringed by their actions, they can do what they want. The thing about GC women is, so long as women's rights, dignity and safety are respected, safeguarding is adhered to and children aren't harmed mentally or physically, we're not saying that other people can't live as they see fit.

For example, I'm an atheist. I don't care if other people are religious. I don't share their beliefs but as long as I don't have to adhere to them or practice them, its nothing to do with me.

We're far more live and let live than we're painted in reality.

@Froodwithatowel I might not be very comfortable at all. This is a question I find really difficult.

Basically my instinct is to attempt to find an intellectually coherent middle ground, accepting of those who genuinely have body dysmorphia but protecting women's spaces. It's difficult!

There is more to it than that: enforcing pronouns, making you participate in a fantasy, avoiding sex offenders in dresses pretending to be transexual, queer theory, wanting to be called lesbians and calling lesbians racists for not wanting to sleep with them. Having a “female penis” whilst women are now referred to as “womb Havers”

the list goes on

Here’s a summary of the protected beliefs held by Bailey…..

290. Applying the Grainger criteria to the beliefs she held, we concluded that her beliefs, not just about gender self-identity, but about the pernicious effect of Stonewall’s campaign promoting gender self-identity were genuine. We also found that these amounted to beliefs, not just opinions which might change with further evidence, because at the core of her opposition to Stonewall, frequently stated, was her understanding that their stance on gender theory – transwomen are women – a matter of their belief, underlay and was driving forward the erosion of women’s rights, access to single sex spaces and lesbian identity; it also underlay the characterisation of gender critical belief as transphobic and a hate crime, which was leading some to violence against gender critical believers. The claimant does not have to be correct, or have evidence to show this – religious beliefs can be difficult to prove. Her statements show that her belief was that Stonewall’s espousal of gender self- identity as a theory led to the practical consequences she deplored. We considered whether these were matters of opinion, based on fact rather than belief. The only way we would see any change to her belief was if Stonewall itself modified its approach to gender identity theory so as to accommodate the possibility that physical differences between men and women based on sex should lead to say, spaces reserved for women based on sex not gender, and separate sporting competitions, based on sex. That would not be a change based on evidence, but a change based on Stonewall modifying its belief such that the claimant would no longer consider there was a conflict.

The claimant’s beliefs, taken as a whole, in our finding pass the test of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. They cohere because of the claimant’s understanding that gender theory, adopted without compromise, generates the range of adverse consequences for women and lesbians that
are described in her list of beliefs. Her objections to Stonewall are all because of the gender self-identity theory which she believed to be erroneous. We concluded it was not possible to separate Stonewall as a campaigning organisation from the gender theory with which the claimant disagreed. Her objection to Stonewall “proselytising” gender self-identity theory is about the difference between her belief and theirs. To separate them would be like holding that homosexuals may lack belief in evangelical Christian teaching about sinfulness of same-sex orientation, but not be protected when they speak against a church institution, or that reformed Protestants are not protected when they denounce the Church of Rome as the whore of Babylon or the Pope as the Antichrist. Manifesting those beliefs may be limited under articles 9 and 10. The beliefs set out by the claimant cohere as an interrelated whole because they are all underpinned by the conflicting view of gender and sex.

292 Finally, we concluded that expressing hostility to Stonewall campaigning on the basis of gender self-identity did not seek to destroy the rights of others, in a way that would not be worthy of respect in a democratic society. It was part of the “dust and heat” (Milton: Areopagitica) generated by the conflict of opinion that must nonetheless be tolerated to avoid the greater evil of censorship.

293. We concluded that all the claimant’s pleaded beliefs, not just the belief that woman is sex not gender, are protected.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body
Yes. I accept that some people believe this. But that doesn't mean they were 'born in the wrong body'. The body you were born with is your body. You might not like it. It might be quite shit. But it's yours.

(do they) have a right to live as the other sex
Well that doesn't mean anything. You can't live as something you aren't. I live as a woman purely because I am a woman. I can't live as a millionaire because I'm not one. I can't live as a non diabetic person because I'd probably die.

Or do you believe these people should not ever be supported to live as the opposite sex? That doing so is always wrong? As above you can't live as something you aren't. I think people should wear what they want and use whatever name they like. If I knew then as their 'old' name it might take me a while to remember the new one. But I'll do it. Have the hobbies and interests that you want. They don't belong to either sex. But play on the teams for your sex and stay in the correct toilets and changing rooms.

If you hold gender critical beliefs, do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body,

Sure. Not only do I accept other people's rights to their firm beliefs, I support their right to hold beliefs that I don't share or even that I vehemently disagree with.

and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex),

I think this is possibly the crux of what "gender critical" means - it means that we are critical of gender itself. If you understand patriarchy to be "a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women" then men being powerful, breadwinning, rulers of the world, made out of little boys who were clever, brave lego-builders while women are supporting, nurturing, keepers of the home, made out of little girls who were dainty pink dolly-cuddlers is integral to that structure. That is what gender is. I cannot subscribe to a system which says that "living as a girl / woman" is equated to femininity under patriarchy.

I think everyone should have the right to dress as they like, enjoy the hobbies they prefer, adopt a name they love, live in romantic relationships with any other consenting adult regardless of sex, and that in an ideal world there would be no such thing as "living as a man / woman" because the whole concept would be redundant.

possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery? Is this a coherent position to hold?

If a capacitous adult wants to take hormones and undergo surgery I wouldn't want the state to stop them. Any more than the state should stop people getting face tattoos and surgery to give them a forked tongue.

Regarding the comparison with transracialism (/blackface), I am trying to think this through.

I think the answer is, it depends.

I think there is a difference between imitating/mocking the natural physical attributes of a different group of people, and just wearing gender non conforming clothes. Clearly, blacking up is always going to be offensive. What's the appropriate comparator to that here? I think that teacher in Canada with the ridiculous fake boobs is offensive. I find it offensive when men who say they identify as women dress up as schoolgirls or wear women's lingerie or skin tight short dresses that basically no woman would be seen dead in. I find Dylan Mulvaney's portrayal of womanhood offensive. But just wearing a dress? Maybe not. I think it depends on the context and whether there's any intention to mock or degrade women.

But what do you mean by accepting those who genuinely have body dysmorphia?

Accepting them how? And more importantly, where?

Are you saying that male people who identify as women and have genuine body dysmorphia should be allowed in women's single sex spaces? Or are you saying that we should accept them as they are everywhere except in women's single sex spaces?

I doubt you would find a gender critical feminist anywhere who would disagree with the latter.

accepting of those who genuinely have body dysmorphia

It’s no longer about those with body dismorphia. The claim that it was about those with body dysmorphia is how the GRA was presented to Parliament twenty years ago. As soon as that had been secured, the campaigning for “demedicalisation” of the gender reassignment process, changing of the terminology used and the broadening of “the trans umbrella”, and the lobbying for self-ID started.

@MargotBamborough By "accept" I suppose I mean "don't find it offensive to the opposite sex that they should feel this way" or "consider it a legitimate and inoffensive way of living a life". So "accept" in the way most people now accept homosexuality, ie don't find it immoral or offensive. Does that make sense?

of course people can wear want they want and chose the name they want to be called by. it's no-one else's business and I couldn't stop them even if I could be arsed.

good luck finding an an intellectually coherent middle ground with the kind of narcissist who wants to force others to pretend they can't tell what sex people are

Should someone's pleasure come at the expense of someone else's safety, dignity and personhood?

@Toseland No, I don't think so. I'm not trying to argue a position, just work out what my position is!

Well then if you don't mean that they should be allowed in opposite sex spaces but that they should be accepted in general society and not subjected to discrimination, harassment or abuse then you will find no disagreement from me.

I agree with many other posters. Adults can present themselves and even call themselves what they want. But it's not possible to change sex, and when you start talking about "living as the opposite sex" it automatically brings in a load of sex based stereotypes which in my opinion harms everyone. The ideology itself reinforces a concept that is harmful to women and men (but more so to women) and that we should be fighting to eliminate. I want rid of gendered assumptions and stereotypes. I'm female, I'll do what I want, dress how I want, and none of that is what makes me a woman. So as I say, people can dress how they want and I will treat them equally to anyone else, but I'm clear they can't change sex and in my mind even trans people that respect single sex spaces are reinforcing gendered stereotypes that are harmful for society.

@MargotBamborough I think that is pretty much what I do mean. Thank you!

They can't change sex. They can wear whatever the fuck they like. They can have whatever interests they like (as long as they are legal!).

But pretending to be a difference sex and forcing others to lie about that isn't ok and has harms.

I believe that these questions should be asked of the transgender activists, i.e., are there any compromises at all, short of us redefining 'woman' to have nothing to do with being of the female sex, that they would accept.

So far I have not come across more than one person online who would be willing to consider third spaces, say, or the very important concept of retaining the old meaning of 'women and girls' so that we can reasonably address misogyny and sexism (FGM, sex-selective abortions and infanticide, child marriage for female children, sex trafficking which mostly affects females and so on).

It's not so much gender critical feminists who are rigid and unbending about all this, in my experience, and discussing how far we would be willing to compromise will do nothing if the other side doesn't accept a single compromise. And so far I have not seen that happening.

If you hold gender critical beliefs, do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body, and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex), possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery?

Of course. GC Feminism simply holds that dressing in gender stereotyped ways (or even taking hormones) doesn't affect your sex and shouldn't permit you to harm women's rights.

More than that I think for a few people transition is the only effective treatment for severe GD. Sadly the evidence is that it isn't a very efficacious and I worry about some groups encouraging that treatment without evidence.

I have trans family, friends and cocolleagues. Nothing about GC Feminism opposes trans rights. GC feminist support gender nonconformity, many feminists are GNC themselves.

I dont think you can live as the opposite sex. Men can wear a dress, makeup, whatever they like. But they cannot breach sex-based spaces which are there to protect women & they cant make me believe in their fantasy.

Welcome!!
"do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body, and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex), possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery? "

Most definitely!
My only issue starts coming in where they start insisting that they "literally" are the thing they say they are, and demanding entrance to sex segregated spaces because of how they feel, with no consideration about anyone other than themselves.
I don't care how anyone wants to dress, or "present" as long as it doesn't affect other people.
The issue is, it is VERY MUCH affecting other people now.
I shouldn't be made to undress around a male bodied person if I do not consent to that. I should not be forced into using Unisex spaces because they're the only ones available.

I will always treat other's how I wish to be treated until they don't provide me that same courtesy - In which case I will treat them exactly how they've treated me.

For me there is an issue with unnecessary medicines and surgeries full stop. The prevalence of cosmetic surgery in our society doesn't feel like progress to me. Slightly off tangent but still relevant in this context.