GC views not valid because the majority are "bad actors"

[BigTubOfLard]

First time posting on this board.
Male friend and me were chatting last night and when he asked who I voted for in the UK elections I said I couldn't vote green because they don't know what a woman is. He said, "Oh you are one of those".

This lead to a loooong discussion of why I held my GC views. We had to agree to disagree, but his main argument for why I was wrong was that "the vast majority" of people who hold my view believe that trans people should not even exist. I could not sway him on this point - didn't matter that I argued that no, the vast majority of GC people are probably women, we don't believe that trans people should not exist, but we have very valid reasons for opposing transwomen in our exclusive space.

So basically my view is wrong because "bad actors" believe trans people should not exist. Any idea how to counter this? I did think of pointing him directly at this forum, but doubt he'll take time to look.

"You don't think trans people should exist!" is a deliberately disingenuous and emotive argument, shaded as it is with nuances of hate and genocide.

Do I believe that people with gender dysphoria exist? Sure I do. It's a mental illness and should be treated as such.

Do I believe that male bodied people exist in the real world as women because of a feeling? No I don't. That doesn't mean I think the man in a dress should be exterminated or mistreated. I just don't think he really exists as a woman.

TRAs have successfully (as in so many other arguments they make; they can only make their arguments sound reasonable if they're tricksy with language) elided these two very different points to make us GCs sound like genocidal and bigoted hatemongers.

I never even bother to engage with that argument because it's pointless engaging with stupidity.

My post was a reply to yours where you said:

It would be much easier to have productive conversations if people could acknowledge where the opposing viewpoints come from as opposed to just shouting them down. In my opinion.

I said you should follow your own advice. You keep misrepresenting everyone else's clearly expressed views. Try reading other people's posts more carefully and ask for clarification if you don't understand, instead of shouting us down, telling us that we've said things that we haven't said.

I'm pretty sure I've had exactly this same discussion with you before. There's obviously no point in discussing anything with you because you're unable to read and understand other people's posts (either that or you choose to misrepresent them).

"You don't think trans people should exist!" is a deliberately disingenuous and emotive argument, shaded as it is with nuances of hate and genocide.

Exactly. It's also disingenuous to pretend that's not what's being implied.

But it is a fact that humans can’t actually change sex. They can change their appearance so that they more resemble the typical appearance of the other sex, and take hormones to develop some of the other sex’s secondary sexual characteristics. People who do this are usually called (and call themselves) trans. But they can’t change their chromosomes / DNA, which determine their sex.

So no, realising that trans people cannot actually change their biological sex is not denying their existence in any way. The people who call themselves trans exist, and choose to change their gender (gender being a social construct) but they aren't actually changing their sex.

A male who does this may then call himself a woman, but he can never become a biological female.

Hi all.
I've remembered something that is probably relevant. Several years ago a bunch of us were having a discussion and the subject of sexual harassment came up. I asserted that there was probably hardly a female alive that hadn't been harassed, mildly or otherwise, and then rattled off several examples that had happened to me.

This same male friend denied that harassment of females was a common as I made out. The extent to which he downplayed it and the vehemence of his denials was really over the top.

I am convinced that he thinks he is one of those "nice guys that would never do anything like that", and also that pointing out that women have to take measures to protect themselves against men is the equivalent of a personal attack against ALL men.

If I am correct, how can I re-broach the subject of "women need single-sex spaces" without making the exclusion of trans women from those spaces seem like a personal attack on all men (including him)?

I know a lot of you will wonder why I am wasting my time, but this guy has a 19 year old daughter and it is frightening to me to think he is putting the rights of self-IDing men over her because he just "does not get it" that asserting our rights to exclusive spaces is not a personal attack on men.

I think I should try to gently lead him down the path of coming to his own realization by approaching it thus:
"Why do you believe women originally asked for single-sex changing rooms?"
I'm sure even he can see why this example is a safeguarding issue.
What do you all think?

@BigTubOfLard I think inquiring why such spaces exist is a good start. Hiwever don't limit yourself to safety. There are certainly privacy and dignity reasons for single-sex facilities too. Including to benefit men.

Taking safety to one side, intimate care for men can sometimes be embarrassing and I can see why they would prefer someone of the same sex to look after them.

Same for things like councelling/ mental health sessions. Having a woman in such a session could very easily change the dynamics to the detriment of the session.

Returning to safety in changing rooms and toilets, it's not that men as a group are dangerous, it's specifically the men that would seek to gain access to female facilities that are the risk.

It depends which country you are in

In the US gender dysphoria is classified as a mental illness (hard to believe given the way things are there) but in the UK it is not

@Yalta

That's interesting about the UK. If gender dysphoria isn't an illness then what were the Tavistock treating?

Interesting question

I think some countries in trying to appease the trans community by not making it sound like they are all mentally unwell have not realised the connotations

Why are the NHS paying for gender reassignment surgery for people who aren’t ill

No wonder the NHS is struggling

In the US, once you have been found to be suffering from gender dysphoria which is a mental illness then to treat it you can have hormones and surgery

Might it help to talk with him about Flat Earthers?

Do "flat earthers" exist?
Apparently 7% of Brazilians are flat earthers.

physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/

If we don't share "flat earthers'" belief that the earth is flat, due to the evidence of our own eyes/ experience/scientific knowledge, does that therefore mean we do not want or believe flat earthers (or 7% of Brazilians) to exist?

Do I personally have to go along with flat earthers' wacky ideas because they truly, truly believe it and always have believed it for as long as they can remember and there are conferences and videos and 'scientific' papers which posit their theories etc? Even if they are delightful, wouldn't hurt a fly types, I can respectfully and perfectly pleasantly disagree with them, yes?

I mean I would generally say live and let live, I don't share your views but enjoy your flat earthing, no skin off my nose, have fun etc.

Except

I don't want you teaching flat earthism to 7 year olds in schools in their Space topic; I don't see any value in Flat Earther Story Time at the library; I actually think being a Flat earther should probably disqualify you from a job at NASA or the Civil Aviation Authority.

I also don't think the BBC should prioritise Flat Earthers' views over those of Real Earthers, I wouldn't expect them to write almost weekly puff pieces about you or only mention your flat earth beliefs when you are the victim but never the perpetrator of a crime nor would I expect them to have you on for 'balance' any time they are talking about Space.

I definitely don't want you having the particular ear of government. I would be highly suspicious of politicians who would say that "flat earths are Earth" and a Prime minister who would be prepared to say 99.9% of the time the Earth is spherical except for when it is disc shaped. 🤯

If you are a flat earther, I reserve the right to privately think that you are foolish or deluded or that you have fundamentally misunderstood the Bible or you are just doing it to get attention or to provoke a reaction. I think that there must be something in it for you but literally nothing that benefits me.

Still, other than that, once again, live and let live, knock yourself out flat earthing, no skin off my nose etc. Exist away!

If, on the other hand, I was to find that flat earthers were part of a movement predicated on removing women's rights, invading women's spaces, demolishing safeguarding, casting the language I use to describe reality as 'hate speech' and mutilating and sterilising predominantly gay and autistic kids, well, that would be a whole different matter....

@BigTubOfLard I think inquiring why such spaces exist is a good start. Hiwever don't limit yourself to safety. There are certainly privacy and dignity reasons for single-sex facilities too. Including to benefit men.

Taking safety to one side, intimate care for men can sometimes be embarrassing and I can see why they would prefer someone of the same sex to look after them.

Same for things like councelling/ mental health sessions. Having a woman in such a session could very easily change the dynamics to the detriment of the session.

Exactly this OP. I sometimes think the safety argument is easier to handwave away than the privacy and dignity argument. The safety argument gets "are you trying to say trans women are dangerous you bigot" but saying you're not comfortable changing in front of a male, or his teen daughter might be, is harder to shrug off without looking like a complete misogynistic arse.

I think the privacy and dignity angle is an excellent approach to take - thank you.
In particular this part: "Taking safety to one side, intimate care for men can sometimes be embarrassing and I can see why they would prefer someone of the same sex to look after them."

It shouldn't be a difficult leap from understanding why some men would prefer a person of the same sex to be managing their intimate care to see why women would want the same. Then I can gently slide the discussion over to safe spaces.

I would hope so.

I read about a successful strategy used by a woman to explain and justify her GC stance to her 16-year-old son: "Imagine you are out with your 7-year-old sister and she needs the loo. You take her to the Ladies and wait outside. As far as you know there is no-one else in there. Then a middle-aged woman goes in. Would you be concerned? No, neither would I. Then the woman comes out and a middle-aged obvious transwoman goes in. Would you feel any concern?"

The boy understood immediately. Something like this might help your friend understand, even if you used his 19-year-old daughter rather than an imaginary seven-year-old. You could make them unisex toilets or changing rooms and talk about a middle-aged man entering.

I agree Miffy, you can talk about a typical man and then say "and what if that man was wearing a wig and female typical clothes?"

Why should you have to?

If he's not prepared to listen to the experiences of women, he doesn't respect women.

Or he thinks they are liars.

If he can't understand why a 54 year old bloke in the same changing room as his daughter might be an issue, tbh I don't think you can reason with him.

If he's that blinkered to not be able to understand why that might make his daughter feel uncomfortable and her privacy and dignity violated nothing will. And even if she's ok with it, what's his inclusive view on how it might impact those from religious grounds. And whilst he's a good guy that won't violate and misuse the opportunity why does he think all blokes are good people? If they all are why are so many locked up for sex offenses?

He doesn't give a shit about women including his daughter and he doesn't want to. Because he's a sexist pig who doesn't value the privacy, dignity and safety of women because it's not his fucking problem to deal with.

I see it regularly on Mumsnet, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

I know other posters have already commented but here are my thoughts too:

I know a number of men who've been genuinely shocked to hear about the everyday harassment endured by women and whose initial response has been 'not all men' (Yes guys, we know.) But to deny it's even real or widespread is, I think, a whole other level.

I think your concern for his daughter is admirable but I also suggest you should be realistic about how much you're likely to change his view.

And frankly, you don't mention whether he's a work colleague but, if he is, then I would watch my back.

Look, you can’t fix this guy and I doubt very much you’ll find the magic words that will make a light bulb go on over his head. If his daughter is 19 then I will lay odds that she’s already experienced sexual harassment, late teens early twenties was the peak time for me and many of my friends. If he truly wanted to know about it, he’d talk to her.

Yes, exactly.

Colleague, not friend.

I don't think trans people are getting more protection than anyone else. The Equality Act stops discrimination against people on various grounds, and that includes trans people.

If we were talking about TW demanding entry into women's sport, that would be a different matter, because they are demanding the right to enter a category they feel like entering and disadvantaging women as a result. They are demanding more rights than other groups in that case.

But as I understand it, the Equality Act isn't specifically about sport. It allows for single sex exemptions where sex matters, which would include sport. But the definition of sex is being muddied by TRAs, so it's not clear at the moment whether "sex" means "biological sex". I wish the government would make that simple change to the Act so it works the way it was intended to before the TRAs came along with their demands.

In my opionion religion is a fantasy, but it's given the same protection as belief that one is trans.

@Ereshkigalangcleg and @OldCrone

What Cassie says above seems relevant to me.

If we got rid of all protected categories and dealt with employment cases simply as unfair dismissal, what about discrimination in housing? I don't think there would be any other law that would protect people against that - it's part of why the Equality Act was created.