What is your definition of TRA?

[Betweenthe2]

Just curious, I am have always read this as someone who is an activist for trans right, but I feel like it is sometimes used on here for anyone who isn't fully GC. What do you mean when you say it?

This is exactly the compromise we need. Single sex and gender neutral to cater for everyone.

A TRA would reject this as othering rather than a sensible compromise.

Maybe schools could think about the TRA they promote if they have enough children struggling with their gender to have a toilet policy, when it was something predominant effecting middle aged men 20 years ago.

It's sometimes possible to apply critical thought and come to different views, when facts are few and inadequate. If you apply critical thinking then I'd understand your reasoning and possibly be persuaded by it. If I didnt find it persuasive we would at least both understand the other's point of view, why we differ and if facts are few I'd recognise that either could be right. TRAs dont do that - it's critical thought against emotion and too bigoted to consider they might be wrong.

We've seen many examples of people in the "be kind" group who have outsourced their thinking and to those who havent applied critical thinking.

A brand new, purpose built secondary school opened near me a couple of years ago.

Every toilet for student use is advertised as ‘gender neutral’, accessible loos have sinks in the cubicle but most have a central trough sink with hand dryers on the end of the unit.

Here’s the page from the prospectus:

I just typed a long post and lost it so this one will be short.

I have not seen the thread you refer to as I wasn't interested when I read the OP. If people are posting as you have described, then that would seem to be a less common approach on this road compared to the usage I mentioned. I have not really seen the usage you have mentioned used on this board. I have seen and used the usage I have mentioned.

"Do you accept that critical thinkers can come to different conclusions to each other?"

I think sometimes yes. However, if the evidence is strong or the logic is strong then I would assume that most people who look at that evidence would make conclusions that are not diametrically opposed. And may be close, if not the broadly the same.

For instance, when presented with the statistics for male sex crime, and then listening to female people describe in detail why they need toilets to be single sex not single gender, one would think that most people would support single sex toilets with a third space provision. Or a solution that protects female people. Do you agree?

Or when presented with study after study for

just how little impact the removal of testosterone to a post pubescent male body has,
how concussion is significantly increased as a health risk in female bodies,
how the wear and tear on female bodies is so significant when those bodies are already performing at the peak for female performance that it shortens those female athletes careers to keep pushing,
that menstrual cycles make female bodies prone to injury and lower performance,
that show that female people will self exclude from sports if they are competing against male people in events that are meant to be for only female people.

I would expect most people applying critical thinking would reach similar conclusions. That male athletes should not be included in female sport even if they suppress their testosterone. Now, that doesn't mean that those athletes are 'banned' from the sport, but they should not be included.

Do you think that someone critically thinking would draw similar conclusions? This is, unless they believe that all of the above should be negated by the need to include male athletes in a sports category they want to participate in because of that philosophical belief I referred to in the other post.

My childrens school installed this type of toilets 10 years ago, but to avoid bullying.

Its boys and girls in stall next to each other, sharing sinks. They are 'gender neutral', that is, mixed sex, but not single occupancy.

I dont know what problem schools think they solve.

@TheClogLady this set up is mixed sex only. That is not what I am responding to.

I’m aware! I was just pointing out that unfortunately, ‘gender neutral’ is currently being installed as a replacement for single sex, rather than in addition to single sex.

Sadly, the TRA position is to replace single sex with single gender (whatever the fuck that means) or to make everything mixed sex.
Additional gender neutral is the reasonable compromise but trans activists say that’s ’othering’.

@TheClogLady ah, thanks for clarifying.

-uses the slur Terf or cis

• says TWAW
• supports self id
• sees no issue with self id men in prisons /single sex spaces
• attends protests against women's free speech
• calls women bigots
• is nasty to women online
• accuses women of 'transphobia'
• supports campaigns to stop film screenings etc
• signs petitions against women's rights
• supports TRA political candidates

I just typed a long post and lost it so this one will be short.

If this is short then your long ones must be novels 🙂

Do you think that someone critically thinking would draw similar conclusions?

Not necessarily - all human beings look at things through the lens of their own experiences in life. Everyone is biased and no one is objective. I think someone with different life experiences and upbringing could form a different opinion by critical thinking. I think it's quite arrogant to believe that all critical thinkers would align with your own viewpoint.

I don't think it is a coincidence that you chose sport as an example. This issue is far more clear cut than other issues as it is undeniable that male bodies go through irreversible changes during puberty that can not be undone. Therefore it is unfair for someone who has been through these changes to compete in a category meant for those that have not.

I could use the example of using people's preferred pronouns. I think two people who are thinking critically could easily have differing views on that.

There are a multitude of issues encapsulated in this debate, I don't that all critical thinkers will feel exactly the same way about all of them.

Certainly falling within the TRA definition are the enthusiastic promoters of trans ideology in my organisation, who have official backing in the name of D & I - even to the extent of working with Stonewall (even now!) to develop policies. Bizarrely, they are mostly women. And who patronisingly describe GC thinking as likely to derive from fear, either from personal experience or fear of what might happen (e.g. suggesting that JKR's views derive from experience of domestic violence........) and they can therefore be re-educated into following the One True Faith.

And who patronisingly describe GC thinking as likely to derive from fear, either from personal experience or fear of what might happen

I see this often. Someone on another thread did it earlier. I am genuinely interested in the thinking behind it. Why do they assume it's fear? I agree with you, it's patronising. I am not scared. Well, fearful of the loss of women's rights, sure, but I do not fear people with TRA views. Is fear the only way to 'rationalise' GC beliefs, rather than accepting them as fact?

This issue is far more clear cut than other issues as it is undeniable that male bodies go through irreversible changes during puberty that can not be undone

This applies in every single issue where women want single sex spaces.

I wonder, what is a TRAs definition of a feminist?

ok. Shall we do pronouns then? That discussion all comes down to understanding there is two levels this discussion involves. The collective level and the individual.

On a collective level, the usage of pronouns has been used by male people to successfully add credibility to their claims to access the female category of sport, to access female single sex spaces and to jeopardise female people's jobs and their well-beings. Based on a compelled linguistic compliance.

There is no evidence at all to support that gender identity theory is any but a philosophical belief. There are no laws that compel any person to adhere to the cultural elements of any other philosophical belief in the UK. No one has to call a priest by any honorific that they use, as an example.

Looking at the Cass Report, the ramifications of social transition, ie. the usage of pronouns, can be said to lock a child into an identity. Therefore, this is a significant issue.

Do you believe that someone who has read the reports, has seen the political leveraging that has already and continues to cause harm by activists, and who doesn't extend honorific titles to others based on philosophical belief will not understand the significance of them using pronouns on a collective level?

That they might choose to extend to use pronouns in a direct interaction with an individual because of some etiquette that they choose to follow is up to them. I cannot be bothered to join that argument.

But do you think that a person who makes all those connections fails to understand the significance of pronoun usage?

Because I would hope that someone who can read and understand all this would absolutely see the connections of how pronouns work.They can see the connections and still make a rational choice, and this will depend on their personal need to maintain politeness on an individual level.

Obviously, there also will be people who don't make those connections, or who do but need to deny that activists have successfully used these polite social mores to gain policy changes that women are campaigning to rectify for instance. Why would they deny it? I don't know. But they do. What is needed for them to believe it? Who the fuck knows?

So, will two people have differing views? Yes. of course they will. Because two people will have very different views on politeness and etiquette in direct social considerations.

Either way, I personally am not involved and tend to not involve myself in any campaigns about pronouns. But I don't believe that at this point of campaigning, that pronoun discussions progress the movement to ensure that when it is necessary that sex is prioritised over gender.

So, yes, there is a reason I chose to discuss sports in my example. Because I am focused on significant issues. If people want to have discussions about pronouns, fine. They can fucking have at it.

There are no laws that compel any person to adhere to the cultural elements of any other philosophical belief in the UK. No one has to call a priest by any honorific that they use, as an example.

As it should be. However I am not sure where you got making it a law has come from as my post was about whether or not people chose to use sex based pronouns only or to use the pronouns people prefer in some or all situations. My point is that different critical thinkers might make different choices.

Do you believe that someone who has read the reports, has seen the political leveraging that has already and continues to cause harm by activists, and who doesn't extend honorific titles to others based on philosophical belief will not understand the significance of them using pronouns on a collective level?

Again, arrogance - people might not agree with you on the significance. They might not see "linguist compliance" as being a big driving force. This doesn't mean that they lack understanding. Perhaps you lack understanding of other factors that are driving it.

That they might choose to extend to use pronouns in a direct interaction with an individual because of some etiquette that they choose to follow is up to them. I cannot be bothered to join that argument.

Yes, this was what I was talking about.

So, will two people have differing views? Yes. of course they will. Because two people will have very different views on politeness and etiquette in direct social considerations.

I think you are agreeing with me, but in combative manner.

And I think you are reading combat into my post.

But hey, no worries. The point was pretty clear. Some people will dismiss the collective harm that has already been done because of using pronouns. My point is that pronouns usage has already been used to leverage policy by activists. I even gave a specific example. You didn’t mention it in your post, can you point out where I said you did please?

I did however, make a point about pronouns being an issue on a collective level to women and girls.

And where is the arrogance in asking your opinion on a point? You either agree or you don’t. How about instead you engage with the point being made since you introduced pronouns into your thread? What factors should be added to the list I wrote that I missed?

”You didn’t mention it in your post, can you point out where I said you did please?”

apologies.

You didn’t mention laws in your post. Can you please point out where I said you did please?

You didn’t mention it in your post, can you point out where I said you did please?

Im not quite sure what you're asking me here.

And where is the arrogance in asking your opinion on a point? You either agree or you don’t.
I don't think asking an opinion is arrogant. I think that implying that everyone who understands the issue would come to the same conclusion as you is.

How about instead you engage with the point being made since you introduced pronouns into your thread?
Isn't the point about accusing everyone who thinks differently of being incapable of critical thought? Or do want to talk about pronoun use?

What factors should be added to the list I wrote that I missed?

Which list? Are you asking what other aspects are there to the trans debate. It's impacts so many parts of life I don't think we would ever have an exhaustive list.
**

Well your post was talking legal compulsion and arguing against it which felt like a bit of a strawman as it wasn't anything to do with what I said. You didn't say I did say it.

No. My post was clear in discussing the fact that pronoun usage has wider ramifications other than 'just being nice and polite to someone'.

Do you agree that it has wider ramifications? You rejected my sports example and suggested pronouns. I was following your lead as it is your thread.

"I don't think asking an opinion is arrogant. I think that implying that everyone who understands the issue would come to the same conclusion as you is."

I believe I said that there would be people who didn't reach the same conclusion. I even suggested a reason why they might not.

"Isn't the point about accusing everyone who thinks differently of being incapable of critical thought? Or do want to talk about pronoun use?"

Sorry? I have said that some people will come to different conclusions due to what they belief and what they reject. I have also said that if you believed the evidence and understood and acknowledge the issues, that it was likely that they would reach broadly the same conclusions.

You seem to have an agenda that you are working to here, I think I will leave you to it.

Happy to leave it. I can promise that I have no agenda other than trying to understand the issues in the trans debate.

It's quite hard to fully understand either the "GC" or the "TRA" positions properly because people in both camps are not willing to be challenged. Any attempt to challenge, or dig deeper is met with accusations of having some kind of nefarious purpose.

On the contrary. I am very willing to be challenged. However, telling me I am combative and seeming to misinterpret my posts without asking for clarification or limiting the scope of my posts to suit whatever it is you are trying to prove (ie. rejecting sport and discussing single sex spaces and suggesting pronouns and then limiting the pronoun discussion to the individual interaction) is not me 'not willing to be challenged'. It is also not a sign in my opinion, that you are open to discussion. however, it is your thread so good luck.