People who just don't get it

[Crowgirl]

Sorry all. I'm just fed up. Old dear friend over tonight all of the well with shouldn't we be kind? Trans women don't have penises. It's not about sterrotyoes. No one thinks kids should be treated medically. JK Rowling is mean. Of course trans sisters should be allowed in women's spaces

My head is going to explode. The absence of critical thinking is too much. I never start threads but I am so sad., so angry and so perplexed.

Sorry but I gave up debating this shit a long time ago and somehow got drawn into shaming tonight. The absence of critical thinking is beyond me.

They say that human reproduction occurs when 2 people capable of reproduction have sex during the fertile period.

But that doesn't make any sense. What people? 2 male people capable of reproduction, or 2 female people capable of reproduction still won't be able to reproduce.

Surely you're not saying that these people really think they can?

And which of two willconceive? Or is it just random chance? 🙄

I think it's more a case of thinking identity trumps other characteristics. Therefore, they do recognise that there are males and females in relation to sexual reproduction but view these characteristics as being pertinent to reproduction and nothing else. A bit like hair or eye colour. They would say that people have these characteristics but they don't have a place in defining status as a women.

In my view of the world, a woman is an adult human female and the category is defined by material reality. I have concerns relating to women's rights and needed protection for WAGs when this definition isn't accepted.

I openly and strongly challenge alternative views and arguments and disagree vehemently with the above view, but I can understand it and disagree with it at the same time

Therefore, they do recognise that there are males and females in relation to sexual reproduction but view these characteristics as being pertinent to reproduction and nothing else.

Well yes. I am in agreement with that. That's literally the GC position. Adult human males and adult human females. The rest of it - hairstyles, clothing, interests - is irrelevant.

All they have done is chose to apply the words 'man' and 'woman' randomly but still recognise that it doesn't change the sex of the person adult human male or adult human female.

That's not what gender ideology is. I think they've got a bit mixed up. Sounds like they are more GC but happy to go along with opposite sex pronouns.

Are you sure they're intelligent? 😂

Not being able to use the urinals is no excuse for not using the gents, as they still have at least one cubicle in. If they really can't use the gents, they should be lobbying for a separate self-contained unisex option.

Some friends.

Take it as an excellent opportunity to meet new people and perhaps make new friends who are honest enough to discuss the issue. Join your local Women’s Rights Network and you’ll see how many women are happy to “get” the issue. They tend to be a pretty smart group of women, too. It’s refreshing.

There are cubicles in men's toilets too, why can't they just use those?

I think my response to her would be, "Fine maybe you don't have a problem with it, but why do you think that gives you the right to say it's fine on behalf of the millions of women who do have a problem with it? Who the hell do you think you are?"

So they believe men and women should be defined according to stereotypes then? And that we don't need words to describe biological sex in humans?

Have you put it to them in those terms?

Do they genuinely believe that all women who don't want to cut their tits off share the same identity as Lia Thomas and Isla Bryson?

Because if so, that's ludicrous, and if not, what the fuck as "identity" got to do with whether you are a woman and what toilets or sporting categories you should be in?

They are intelligent, they are also decent people. They understand my and the GC viewpoint and don't dismiss me as a bigot or transphobic for holding GC views, they just disagree with them.

They don't argue that all transwomen should be included in single sex spaces, they suggest some should. They think I am very rigid and purist in my thinking on this.

When I say that I don't feel like a woman or identify as a woman, and being a woman is determined by material factors, they just state that we hold different ideas about what a woman is/isn't.

They say that just like society no longer puts pregnant teenagers in mental asylums, we no longer need to reject people's gender identities. They say there is debate to be had as to which types of women should/shouldn't be included in which spaces, but there should not be a debate as to whether or not they should be considered women.

They say there is debate to be had as to which types of women should/shouldn't be included in which spaces, but there should not be a debate as to whether or not they should be considered women.

If they are as intelligent as you think they are, they must be able to see the obvious contradictions in what they're saying. By 'types of women' I presume they mean whether they are female women or male 'women'. They are obviously making a distinction between the two 'types of women' since they don't believe that male 'women' should always be treated the same as female women. Yet they think it is appropriate for all of them to be called women, which implies that there is no difference between the two groups.

They are saying that "there should not be a debate as to whether or not they should be considered women", but they don't consider them to be women. If they did they wouldn't be debating about whether they should be included in women's spaces.

If they are calling them all by the same name (women), but they are excluding some categories of 'women' from women's spaces, on what basis are they making the distinction between the different types of women?

How do they respond to the Staniland Question, would you say?

And what's their solution to the devout Muslim woman of my extended acquaintance, who was greatly enjoying the women-only sessions at the gym until a TW insisted on going to them too? She lost 100% of her provision in order that a male may select his preference of all the sessions. What's their suggestion for a fair solution - because that isn't it?

(I've made headway before with the last question. If they opine that the woman needs to update her thinking it's useful to illustrate the hierarchy of PCs and the accidental Islamophobia.)

They argue that to be inclusive, sometimes, provision needs to be specific to women AFAB (their words not mine). So they would not have a problem with swim sessions or changing areas being single sex (or in their view of the world, for women who were AFAB). They are very against TW only having access to AMAB provision on the basis that this will result in their exclusion.

It has been very eye opening for me to have open conversations with self proclaimed 'trans allies'. They are different to the activists in lobby groups on social media.

I think people just haven't thought through the wider ramifications and want to "be kind".

I had a conversation with a relative who has a fully transitioned friend and their care was just for how the trans person felt.

When I pointed out things like sports and the fact that her trans friend didn't tell people that they were trans before having sex with them was actually rape, you could see a lightbulb go on in her head.

Now she goes around stickering with her teacher mates.

It sounds like they almost get it, but perhaps are too paralysed by their 'be kind' brainwashing.

They seem to, as Oldcrone said, recognise that we need words to describe the different categories of 'women'. (They choose AFAB and women, whereas a GC person would say women, and 'women plus trans women' - but they appear to agree on the concept).

The only difference is, they appear to have redefined the word woman to mean a new definition that is not universally accepted - only in certain circles - ie an identity rather than a biological reality.

Given that they can't force other people to use the Newdefinition(TM), ask them how useful a contested definition is when you all agree there is a need for words that a)describe the 2 groups and b) are universally understood.

I would love to sit these people down with a glass of wine and a whiteboard, and illustrate all the logic with them. It would be really interesting to see if they had a lightbulb moment, or whether they doubled down. But if the latter, it might help illustrate where you're views diverge and get them to explain/ examine it a bit more.

This is what I don't get.

Women are constantly told that it doesn't matter who is in the room outside the cubicle- as long as we have an individual private cubicle that's all the space we should need.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to trans women in men's toilets - just use the cubicle and you will magically be safe?

It is literally a demand for more rights for transwomen than women.

How people can fail to see this I do not know.

Their position is completely incoherent.

If they recognise the need for single sex provision in some circumstances but also think that trans women should not only have access to men's facilities, how do they actually expect that to work? Are they advocating for third spaces? Do they know that many trans people have said that they do not want third spaces because being in opposite sex spaces is the point?

How do they propose to make and enforce a rule that allows a completely harmless, absolutely committed trans person who has had all the surgery and genuinely believes they identify as the opposite sex to use opposite sex spaces, without allowing literally anyone to use them?

It sounds like they haven't thought this through at all.

They don't argue that all transwomen should be included in single sex spaces, they suggest some should.

But who decides which transwomen should be included, and what do they base their decision on? Looks? How much surgery they've had? How vehemently they state that they really, really are a woman? If a cunty woman vouches for them?

Then, if there is a panel of decision makers who have a foolproof method of deciding who is included, how do the rest of us tell who has got permission?

They argue that to be inclusive, sometimes, provision needs to be specific to women AFAB (their words not mine). So they would not have a problem with swim sessions or changing areas being single sex (or in their view of the world, for women who were AFAB).

This is the gender critical position. Are they aware of that?

Exactly. That's never going to work. If you're going to be consistent, there are only two possible positions:

1. Men can never be women. No men in women's spaces no matter what sort of special identity they claim to have or what surgery or other medical treatment they've had.
2. Any man who says he's a woman is a woman. While an insane position, it is at least consistent.

Saying that some men who claim to be women are women, while others aren't or that men who claim to be women should sometimes be considered to be women but sometimes not, is just unworkable.

You do know men don't poop into urinals and they actually have cubicles too?

This: plus the long list on Glinner's site!