My son can tell...

[allthevitamins]

Watching 'Inside the Factory' on BBC1 with DS, 10.

Cherry Healy was talking about lightbulbs with Dr Clara Barker, Materials Scientist.

Please note this is not personal in relation to Dr Baker.

Dr Barker is Transwoman.

DS says, 'is that a lady?'.

I say no, it's a man.

We left it at that.

I mean Dr Barker is quite feminine.

But unprompted, my DS knew that Dr Barker is not a woman.

Why should I have to lie to him about this?

Remember that poor girl who was beaten to death by some teens because she was a goth? Her boyfriend was beaten up too. Because she was a goth girl, just minding her own business out with her boyfriend.

Definately a hate crime. I didn’t see any vigils, marches of people strutting about with her face in a T-shirt.

@negeme

If gender isn't an identity how do we spot trans gender people?

It's how they dress, behave, style their hair, speak, ask to be addressed...its how they present themselves to the world.

How is any of that biological? Or dictated by biology? You're not biologically set in your sense of self. You don't come out crying if your parents dress you in a onesie you don't like.

Your identity and preferences all come from your experiences.

If gender wasn't an identity it wouldn't be a 'man dressed as a woman'...it would just be a male wearing clothes.

If you can dress as something it's has to have some sense of identity? Dressing punk, goth, chavvy.

As a woman you aren't born with the knowledge that you can wear dresses and heels and lipstick and have long hair (for example, reductionist I know) that's all part of the gender norms from society.

Not only do I know what I mean but I also know that sometimes an idea not being understood is not the fault of the explainer. So I have no problem with you feeling I've failed to answer your questions.

I have found this discussion very interesting and am pleased to have had it but I am not naive enough to ever have assumed someone might change their view.

Sorry to continue the 'nonsense' - I've been more than happy to just agree to disagree which seems another nonsense concept to you.

If gender isn't an identity how do we spot trans gender people?

A good question…
the concept of gender does exist - we see it in stereotypes all around us, it is a shorthand reference for understanding biology / differences at that moment in time…

so today we can say that the stereotype of a man at work is a suit, tie, leather soled shoes carrying a briefcase / the stereotype of a woman is a skirt and blouse, jewellery heels and a handbag

those are stereotypes as not all men / women conform - but if you described someone in a novel just by their clothes, most readers today would know you meant man / woman…

however those stereotypes are fluid - clothes worn by men and women continually change… hooped dresses, wigs and patches, men in heels, the colours you dress the children, hats, cravats, 2 piece suit or three, petticoats, etc… describe a woman today wearing a jumpsuit or dungarees and then give that novel to a Victorian audience and they would assume you were referring to a man…

that concept of gender stereotype is temporal and fleeting, and as we all know is simply a lazy shorthand - we all know that girls can play with Lego or do engineering, boys can be dancers or have emotions - one of the great things of this era is how much we have broken down those gender stereotypes and continue to do so…

so gender is not immutable, it is not a thing that you can be, it is simply a temporal shorthand for referring generically to underlying sex…

so what does transgender actually mean? Break apart the word and it means someone who is or has moved gender… it does raise some questions though:

• if gender is temporal and fluid how can you move gender
• if gender is a shorthand reference to generalise the underlying sex and you can’t move sex, how can you move gender?
• if as a person of one sex (eg male) you decide to adopt the outward gender stereotypes of the opposite sex - that doesn’t make you any more that other sex, it simply expands the envelope of how we understand your sex, so a man wearing a skirt, blouse, heels and jewellery is not becoming or has become a woman - they are simply expanding the norm of what men wear - if all men adopt that dress code, they don’t all become women, they simply change the male gender stereotype

so transgender actually doesn’t mean the the person is changing gender, it actually means that they are transing or changing their stereotyped gender - they are changing what it means to appear male etc (otherwise they would be changing sex which is not possible!) it is the stereotype that moves (transitions) not the person

so, if you can’t actually change your gender, and we clearly know you can’t change sex what is actually meant by transgender / the movement / all its claims…

we are left with two choices:

• that the individual believes you can change sex or that they are the other sex - which is clearly a mental health issue
• that the individual is playing a game and for transwomen that game is likely to be sexual / power / control / etc based and that is clearly a safeguarding issue

so back to the question: If gender isn't an identity how do we spot trans gender people?

• by inappropriate appearance, back to the OP’s son who is no fool - when you have societal stereotypes, those who are outliers against those stereotypes raise questions
• by inconsistencies and deceit - the male cyclist pretending to be a woman and wearing lycra which makes obvious they are male
• by their actions - the man who claims to be a woman
• by their genitals - the man wandering naked around a women’s changing room
• etc.

and for each you have to decide - is it a mental health issue that they truly believe they are the other sex or is there some other game being played (and the flaunting / discretion often helps you tell the difference!)

but fundamentally we need to remember the key parts of this debate:

• sex is immutable
• you are born your sex there is no choice at any point
• gender exists only as a temporal shorthand stereotype it is not ‘a thing’
• those adopting the stereotypes of the opposite sex simply expand the definition of their own gender stereotype they do not become the other gender or sex
• therefore in reality there is no such thing as transgender and definitely no such thing as transsex

I’ve just come across this thread in search of something else. Whilst I remain undecided about my position on some aspects of policy etc regarding trans rights (e.g whether transgender people should be able to compete with men/women) I don’t get why people can’t just be accepted by an identity they choose. Just like I (female born) choose not to dress in florals, pinks and dresses generally. At the same time I am not dressing masculine. So am I not accepted as a ‘proper woman’ because of this? Simply explaining to our children that someone was born one sex but feels more intuned to a different gender should suffice. Telling our children people are ‘playing dress up’ is just discrimination.

Which is why I don't think we should tell our children that people are playing dress up.

We should tell them that that person is a man pretending to be a woman, in this case

(Of course, unless people are actually playing dress up in some way - but then they will say that's what they're doing. Historical reenactors dressed in period costume are not from their chosen century, they know that and say so. Similarly with actors.)

Simply explaining to our children that someone was born one sex but feels more intuned to a different gender should suffice.

a) what on earth does that even mean? Intuned? Gender? What is any of that?

b) No, I'm not telling a child of mine that gender is a thing that they have to believe in and bow down to.

and c) I am also not going to mislead them that any male dressed in feminine clothing has pure intent and good faith in doing so, because some really don't.

Those playing these games have no respect for those who do not: why on earth would I teach my child to subordinate themselves to a power exchange relationship with complete strangers?

and c) I am also not going to mislead them that any male dressed in feminine clothing has pure intent and good faith in doing so, because some really don't.

”some” is the word to highlight there. Why should anyone be judged being trans just because there are some people out there who may be impersonating a different gender for ulterior and disturbing reasons? I get the concerns that there may be people doing this and we should we wary, but some people genuinely just wish to feel accepted in a way they choose. The same with sexuality… I have met several transgender people who are lovely genuine people. They are not harming others nor do they push their status on anyone. They are simply being true to themselves. As for the comments about how people dress, I haven’t come across anyone who presents themselves in any sort of flamboyant or over the top way that makes them stand out. Not that I think that matters anyway

Have I understood correctly that you don’t think changing clothes makes you a different person? That you are as much a woman as someone wearing a pink frilly dress? I totally agree. Your identity doesn’t depend on what you wear.

Some words and concepts have definitions that you can’t mess with. You are a woman regardless of your clothes, medical conditions and hairstyle.

Age is just a number. Energy levels and outlook are personality or experience based and change from situation to situation. Your age does not. You can be young at heart, but you can’t be 21 again!

”some” is the word to highlight there. Why should anyone be judged being trans just because there are some people out there who may be impersonating a different gender for ulterior and disturbing reasons? I get the concerns that there may be people doing this and we should we wary, but some people genuinely just wish to feel accepted in a way they choose

Two points.

How do we know which group anyone falls into? Do they have badges or something?

Accepted in what way? Accepted as a member if the opposite sex? That'll be a no, because they aren't.

Not only do I know what I mean but I also know that sometimes an idea not being understood is not the fault of the explainer. So I have no problem with you feeling I've failed to answer your questions.
If one person doesn't understand then the fault may lie with that one person.
But it's not one person, it's millions. And we don't understand because nobody has ever given a credible answer. We repeatedly ask and the answer is never forthcoming.

The wilful naivety and innocence is as annoying as all the other demands to pretend. You only have to watch the activist lobby turn up in force to scream at women to see a group that generally looks like the escaped cast of Cabaret. And the ones waving swords, stuffing tampons up their bottoms, wanting kids to call them miss in the classroom because it is a sexual thrill, wanting women to pee in the next cubicle because its a thrill, wanting to undress next to non consenting women for validation....

no it's not all lovely harmlessness wanting to live in peace without bothering others. If it was, FWR would still be about ten ferociously intelligent women discussing obscure texts together, as it was before all this bullshit started.

Again the demand is; "Pretend."

No.

To get back to absolute basics, all the discussions about 'gender' wouldn't really be of any relevance if we could all start any discussions on the factual biological basis that there are two sexes, male and female, and that 1. It is at a fundamental level empirically true to say that they are different - so, for eg, when skeletons are dug up, it is clear from the pelvis which is which, and 2. Whatever the differences at individual level - so, for eg, Venus Williams is bigger than my DH, and a lot better at tennis - at population level, men are bigger, stronger, faster, more violent and with a greater tendency towards crime.
That factual basis means that every other discussion is secondary to the fact that if we want to make efforts to have an equal society, women have to have particular protections from men, irrespective of whatever an individual man (or indeed individual woman) thinks about their 'gender', their 'identity' or anything else.

@Froodwithatowel Absolutely. Your post made me laugh and also succinctly expressed why I'm so furious about the lying and whataboutery.

did you actually read any of the thread - or more specifically, my post immediately above yours?!

gender identity is a stereotype of the moment - the more we support and promote gender the more we reinforce stereotypes - and therefore the less freedom we actually give to those who wish to be non-conforming... it ironically has exactly the opposite effect of what people say they want...

people can be accepted as the identity they choose - as long as they are being honest... the TV show referred to by the OP - the person there has an identity of a man dressed as a woman / man dressed in a skirt - I and most others have no issue with any man dressing in a skirt - that is to be non-conforming / the type of man you want to be / extends the envelope of the male gender stereotype - that is great and should be supported...

however... when that same person, or others make the claim that they ARE a woman - that has gone beyond accepting of non-conformity:

• It is a biological fact that a man can never be a woman - if you are born male you will be male all your life...
• your conformity or otherwise to gender stereotypes has nothing to do with your sex - as you say, you choose not to dress in florals / pinks / dresses - but you are still a woman - gender and sex are not the same - sex is immutable, gender is a snapshot in time of how generally that sex lives
• So someone born one sex - but who likes the trappings of the opposite gender stereotype - should be encourage, that is fine - but that does not mean that they become that opposite sex
• If someone is claiming something that everyone knows can not happen then it is a lie / it is deceit - it is easy to spot, because to support that argument which can not be won, they have to change the definition of words, they have to bully others, they make death threats, they threaten, they are violent, they de-platform, etc. etc. None of that would be necessary if their argument had any validity - as it doesn't they have to try and find a way to win the un-winnable - fortunately people are fighting back by simply stating the one core truth - a woman is an adult female - it is not something any man can become...

So this has nothing to do with 'being nice' and supporting people because of course that is important - this has everything to do with not allowing deceit and lies - not allowing children to be damaged and abused - not allowing women to be bullied, oppressed and minimised - it is about power and sexual perversions and oppression - and fighting back against that.

As a man can never be a woman, so a man wearing a skirt and pretending to be a woman - at a child's level is most similar to 'dressing up' children are familiar with that concept, of pretend and imagination - so it is totally appropriate language.

And it is not discrimination - how has that person been discriminated against / how are they not able to access something / how are they disadvantaged? That is an inaccurate use of the word...

Let men dress in 'women's clothing' - but let's never be deceitful and say that makes them a woman...

I don’t see how the way we define our own identity (or that of others) is harmful to children. What I agree is harmful is when adults abuse children (they may be male or female). Simply because an individual wishes to identify as the opposite sex to which they were born, does not make them an abuser or risk to children. Yes it’s important that we are honest with our children but this does not mean we should word things in such a manner which is detrimental to the people we’re speaking about. There’s a lot of talk on here about science and hard facts - yes fine there is stuff we can’t dispute - but don’t confuse that with opinion and personal ethics.

90% of violent crime and 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men. It is of no consequence how those men identify - they can identify as men, women or unicorns, they are still, statistically, vastly more dangerous than women. They are also more dangerous because even if a man and a woman were equally likely to commit dangerous crimes, men are, at population level, bigger, stronger and faster than women, and therefore harder to physically escape from.
Therefore saying that a man is a woman (as opposed to saying it is a man dressed in what could be termed womens clothes) is to play with the reality of risk.

I think there's some distinct problems with our language.

Firstly, a terrible squeamishness about the word 'sex', which I think is big part of how we got here, and how 'gender' became corrupted.

Secondly... there needs to be a massive shift in education/understanding about the difference between talking about men (or anything) at a 'class' level, and an individual level. Far too often are these obfuscated.

Thirdly, essentially forcing our children to be complicit in an untruth IS abuse. My DS KNEW Dr Barker is not a woman. I wasn't inclined to go along with Dr Barker being a woman for any reason. Well, my son needs to be able to confidently identify a man when he sees one. And no matter whether we nodded in agreement with how Dr Barker presented, or shouted insults at the TV, Dr Barker would have been be non the wiser at that particular moment.

So my DCs need to be able to know who is male/female to keep themselves safe. For those with daughters... well the risks are greater. I'll keep my child safe from predatory males all day even if it means hurting someone's feelings.

As I've said, if those men are just walking down the street, or filling their cars with petrol, then I'm pretty live-and-let-live. But anyone who's in a position of trust in relation to my child, well I won't accept it. Especially if it's the full package of name/ pronouns/appearance. It's not fair to force my child to question or deny what they know to be fact. That's a type of abuse to me.

so, you see no safeguarding issues with:

• men sleeping with girl guides
• men changing in female changing rooms
• men presenting as women in positions of trust such as in teaching
• children being given chemicals to delay puberty
• children having their bodies mutilated
• children being told lies about who they are / can become
• children having their future health and reproductive options wrecked
• etc…

???

sorry, but they are all huge safeguarding issues which are happening every day because we are told that we must be nice to and not upset a small group of people who have ‘interesting’ motivations for their actions…

no, it is time to stop this and to stand up for truth and honesty, we need to teach children that they are allowed to be honest… we need to protect children not lying to them

of course there is talk of science and hard facts - because that is the truth, I would never confuse that with opinion and ‘personal ethics’, they have no validity in this argument if not based on science and facts, people can claim what they want but only science and the facts will be right!

The arguments on this page keep coming back to a point that ‘some’ men dress up as women for predatory reasons to cause harm to women and children. I don’t dispute that there are likely such characters in our society, but this is not reason to tar everyone with the same brush. Once upon a time people thought gay men were a risk to children.

It is also interesting that the focus is always on men dressing as women and not women dressing as men. I wonder if you see the same harms here?

I have not shared my views on physical transformations nor hormones being given to children. My views have been surface level in this thread, only challenging some of the statements made that I feel are not based on fact but try to hide behind that.

I don’t dispute that there are likely such characters in our society, but this is not reason to tar everyone with the same brush.

Firstly, it’s not “likely” there are such characters, there ARE such characters and they have been caught and their cases are well publicised.

Second, can you explain how you tell the difference between nice men who identify as trans, dangerous men who identify as trans, and dangerous men who might pretend to be trans and dress up as women in order to commit crime?

Do women and girls deserve the safety, privacy and dignity by being without all men (even the nice, safe ones) when in a state of undress or when sleeping?

Yes or no?

If no, why not?

Regarding your ‘vice versa’. It is not comparable in terms of the safety. But do men deserve the same privacy and dignity that same sex spaces offer as per above?

(I think they do).

It also has the benefit of protecting women and girls by not allowing them to enter such a space where men are undressing.

This is about categories used for safeguarding - ‘some’ adults are a risk to children so ALL adults are treated the same for safeguarding purposes.

’Some’ men are a risk to women and children and so ALL men are treated the same for safeguarding purposes.

'‘some’ men dress up as women for predatory reasons '

Yes. How do we tell them apart from the nice ones?

Also, this is once again seeing it from the viewpoint of the male and what he wants.

Women are also entitled to single sex spaces on the basis of privacy and dignity.

Why does a transwoman's desire to be away from men get accommodated, but a woman is supposed to lump it when said male wants in with her?

Transmen are female and don't present the same risk. If they 'pass' they may cause alarm in a women's space, and they may be at risk in men's spaces.

Sorry, cross posted with everyone else!

It can’t be said often enough…

There was a time that some people thought gay men were more risk of committing sex crime than the rest of the UK male population. That was false though. That was an illegimate discrimination.

Your using them here is a false equivalence though, Because gay men were not asking to be considered LESS risk than any other male in the UK.

By demanding access to female single sex spaces, males with trans identities are expecting to be exempt from the safeguarding principles that have led to the establishment of female single sex spaces in the first place. There is absolutely no evidence that any male at any stage of transition is lower risk of committing sex crimes than the rest of the UK male population.

There is absolutely nothing. Not only that, the logic for their inclusion should be that these male people would have LESS of a risk of committing sex offenses than female people. And this is most definitely not the case.

Except now that we have had x years of male people’s crimes reported in our crime stats as being done by female people, our female stats have increased for those crimes. How convenient!

The last time a sub group of male people were considered exempt from being held to the same safeguarding principles and protocols as all other male people, allowed women and children to be harmed. Their victim stories are still coming out.

No sub groups of male people should be exempt from risk assessment for safeguarding purposes. Unless there is a long established history of them having risk levels lower than all female people of the population.

Gay male people were not asking for special treatment at all. Male people with trans identities are demanding it as everyone else has mentioned.