Why do all trans discussions end in a bun fight?

[Name5]

I have a natal daughter who is a young adult. I try to keep an open dialogue with her as her thoughts are changing as she gets older.
She is not causing any discord to anyone. I try to help when desparate parents ask simple questions about their LGBTQ DC ( this week it was about getting a job). Within a few hours there are big fights re toilets and rape crisis centres. Yes these things are horrifying but every bloody thread gets high jacked with these points of law. There should be a subject category for parents of adult trans people. This would allow issues to be discussed without the OP being subjected to accusations of ideology or affirmation. I don't believe my DD is better as a male persona but I can't and won't bully her to accept my feelings override hers. She's still my DC and all subjects are open to reasonable and lawful discussion. MNHQ can you please list a new category so people don't feel attacked and bullied?

The one thing that seeing all this play out on MN over the years has convinced me is that 99% of people who are trans or claim to support trans rights don't really believe a lot of the more extreme stuff the vocal ones say, that always dominate and shut down discussion elsewhere.

The "allies" would rather stay silent than ever examine or explain what they claim to mean. They must know, even the denser ones, on some level that not being able to say, for example, what they mean when they say "woman", or "gender matching sex" etc must be some indication that they haven't thought it through very well.

The few trans people that have had the goodwill to get across their point of view have largely openly said that they don't believe in the gender belief stuff, they just want to be the opposite sex. One person did set out why they thought they were really a woman and sadly - and it was a sad tale, because these beliefs are harmful and they had been harmed - it was all based on the most breathtakingly sexist worldview ever, which they had accepted from those around them.

Yet it's the unthinking mantras and "TWAW no discussion" that took the lead here and in other countries. It is taken literally and has influenced the courts, our councils, our sports, our hospitals, and our schools.

It's.... It's really really weird, is what it is.

Anyway OP I am sorry to go off on this tangent but it's always what happens and always cements my feeling that there is no opposing view that is coherent and not sexist or homophobic.

Dominic "I hadn't quite grasped the significance of the Port of Dover to UK-EU trade" Raab went to both Oxford and Cambridge.

By the way, although 'the imposition of genderist belief on non consenting members of wider society, including by adopting a gendered persona and insisting that be noticed and responded to' might be a way to describe the package being presented as 'trans' I am equally anti the imposition of pink personae on females and macho ruggedness on males.

Genderism is pernicious, inhumane and anti human. We are the sex we are, but we do not have to adopt a gender.

This is how i tend to see it:
Sex - male or female, biological

Gender - society's expectations, demands etc of people based on their sex (so gendered clothing, toys, femininity, masculinity, etc)

Gender identity - assuming those expectations are correct for each sex and you determine which one you most fit into. Non-binary means you accept they're correct for everyone else who is a man or woman but you don't fit into either of the two groups.

Describing women's concerns as 'a bun fight' is insulting. This is the feminist board and this issue directly affects us. We aren't the ones being discriminatory.

Indeed. It is also emotionally manipulative.

Let's not forget that the title encouraged posters to come and attempt to shame the women who are discussing the needs of female people as a collective. Not that that requires any encouragement at all....

But yes... women discussing the negative impacts of some people's philosophical belief is worthy of the derision obviously.

Is "anti-trans" the same as "transphobic"? I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm anti-trans in terms of the ideology (because it is harmful, both to confused adolescents, and to women's rights), but I'm not "anti-trans" in the sense that I feel animosity towards a confused teenage girl who thinks she should have been born male - although I am glad there is less pressure now than there was previously to provide affirmation through using preferred pronouns, etc. My confidence in declining to use pronouns and to vocally oppose trans ideology has been reinforced by discussions on the FWR board (and of course by Maya Forstater, Helen Joyce, JKR, Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, and others).

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

You could imagine a graph with characteristics like what gametes you produce, what hormones you secrete, what chromosomes you have, what physical development you display, what psychological traits in brain structure etc etc - we divide this into two categories but could theoretically have many more.

The real question is whether sex and gender are useful. In a world where there was no rape and violence against women, would it matter if there were genders? Is the division into two sexes a defensive structure that needs to be there so women can be protected from men, or does it set up expectations and behaviours that perpetuate male violence?

If everyone was just seen as a person regardless of what was in their pants, would it add to peace and freedom because we wouldn't be socialised into restrictive roles, or would are those roles hard wired and we'd be putting the fox amongst the chickens?

It comes down to: should we be frightened of men? Are they inherently a threat?

Past experience of humanity suggests yes, we should and male aggression needs to be controlled and contained. But I can't really blame people for dreaming of a world where that wasn't the case.

no, that’s not a logical progression. There used to be a saying ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’. Because you hold a ‘destructive and harmful’ belief , it does not mean that you cannot also be charitable, responsible , thoughtful and constructive. It is only when your belief system enables or even prescribes that you have the right to harm other people in its name that you do harm to other people ( and indeed yourself.)

The concerns of most posters on this board are that this belief system does damage other people’s opportunities, freedoms and even in extreme cases, their safety . The virulent upholders of the ideology refuse to accept others’ (overwhelming women) right to privacy, safety, opportunity and expression. but it is still their behaviour which is destructive and harmful, not themselves.

Describing women's concerns as 'a bun fight' is insulting. This is the feminist board and this issue directly affects us. We aren't the ones being discriminatory.
@Thelnebriati

Came to say exactly this. Women have 'bun fights', men have 'heated debates' or a 'passionate exchange of views'.

Any discussion that doesn't end in consensus or 'agree to disagree' or compromise is just not ladylike.

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

Oh absolutely, I thought that went without saying as nearly any physical category will have edge cases.

If everyone was just seen as a person regardless of what was in their pants, would it add to peace and freedom because we wouldn't be socialised into restrictive roles, or would are those roles hard wired and we'd be putting the fox amongst the chickens?

Well, being male/female entails SO much more than "what is in your pants" - risks (by which I mean probabilities, not dangerous risks per se) are wildly different for things like strength, pregnancy, menstruating, loads of health conditions, violent crimes - so those would still come into play. Hence single-sex spaces.

But when it comes to using that to assume - and expect - what an individual person is like, what their skills are, what they want in life, what their character is... then yes I think sex should be irrelevant.

In other words, where sex matters, be honest about it and let's not hide the differences it can bring. Where it doesn't, treat people equally.

I'm just intrigued as to why the OP didn't post this thread on AIBU, where the thread (non binary candidates) that the OP is presumably referring to appeared, to scold the posters on there but instead decided to post this thread (with an incendiary title almost designed to have the 'you're all anti - trans bigots!!!!!' posters flocking) on FWR instead.

Well "anti-trans" is, I suppose an improvement on the usual "transphobic".

I believe in telling the truth and it's not possible to change sex.
I'm in favour of people being healthy, not harming themselves.
I'm in favour of women retaining a right to privacy.

I'm in favour of fairness in sport so a special category for those whose female bodies mean they are at a disadvantage compared to males.
I'm not in favour of people seeking to force their belief system on me.

Now explain to me what is wrong with that.

Some people would like to assault me, rape me, murder me, deny me employment for holding those views. They are full of hate.

Noe explain to me why you support hate.

Does your son know that you refer to him as your natal daughter? Bigot! Educate yourself and do better etc

/s

Extremists took over and ruined it for the ones who weren't that bad. It totally undermined trust and eroded safeguarding and rights for women and homosexuals. The lunatics taking over the asylum means there can't just be a taking it without being fully conscious of this problem. This is the trouble.

Yes she does.

Also it's important that transmen retain their sex based rights, because they are particularly vulnerable for various reasons.

So we want to protect boys, girls, young men and young women (and within that especially lesbians and gays and autistic and those who have been sexually abused) from transition which is inappropriate for them and causes them harm.

We also want to protect those who do transition from health related risks and to make sure there is adequate awareness of the draw backs of this.

We also want to protect girls and women from transwomen being used as a loophole for the nefarious who have transitioned or men who just exploit the loophole.

This isn't anti trans. This recognition of an actual issue.

Equally transwomen need potentially protecting from themselves and being in denial over their own sex because of the snake oil of promises and actually health concerns which are retained with sex.

Yet we are framed as 'anti-trans'.

No we are anti nonsense and pro women and girls

I regard gender stereotypes as sexism. I find saying you are trans relies on sexism to underpin it.

And that's why we need to see sex as part of this discussion.

An observation I've made is that pro trans people often focus on the individual friend or family member and their rights as an individual, in contrast to gender critical people who tend to view things on a more general basis and look at the effects on women more widely of men being able to identify into women's spaces, women's sports, and the harm to vulnerable people of gender ideology. When people are coming from different starting points there will always be a clash of views.

Some gender critical people have tried to find middle ground and have suggested third spaces but these have been rejected by some trans supporters as "othering" and gender critical people have been told some trans people will refuse to use them. Personally, I can't see a resolution to this impasse. However, as trans/non binary becomes less fashionable to teenagers the number of people involved will decrease and the problems may become less pressing. Third spaces (in addition to sexed facilities) such as individual toilet cubicles with their own handwashing facilities and floor to ceiling walls may also be introduced in more new buildings which will also help to reduce conflict.

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. But that’s a circular argument. Without the rule, how will we know?

Apart from, if you try to define a set of biological criteria you will fail. There are exceptions to every rule and people who don't fit into near categories.

You could imagine a graph with characteristics like what gametes you produce, what hormones you secrete, what chromosomes you have, what physical development you display, what psychological traits in brain structure etc etc - we divide this into two categories but could theoretically have many more.

This is utter bullshit. Every single human can be defined as male or female.

We've done this over and over. It's embarrassing for you.

I'm here because my middle aged brother has decided the answer to all his problems is to demand the rights of a Transwoman.
And it's only rights not obligations except to live his best life.

He's stolen HRT
Made a suicide attempt that involved sending texts to more people than a company newsletter and leaving the door unlocked.
Deliberately got himself beaten up in a pub. Literally asked for it but it's going to court.
Is now making clumsy references to sanitary product to my daughter's.
Poncing money from my mum to pay for the whole costume & lifestyle without covering his basic bills.

Obviously this is a long way from your DD.
It's also a long way from my gay friends together for 30 years. And teenage lesbians finding their way.

But when we get manipulative people like my brother loudly demanding rights without obligations using other groups as window dressing, that's why I'm here armed with buns.

An observation I've made is that pro trans people often focus on the individual friend or family member and their rights as an individual, in contrast to gender critical people who tend to view things on a more general basis . . .

Some gender critical people were moved out of a position of neutrality or uninterest by suddenly seeing the catastrophic psychological and physical damage done to a person in their family or friend group who was encouraged into adopting a trans identity. It is almost like bereavement.

I resist the use of that expression 'deadname' because women change names so often without dying, but the extreme reality-denying position adopted by some genderists, pretending that the girl or boy you knew never existed, is horrific. And I can't think of anything that would shake off the fluffy 'be kind' blindfold more effectively than seeing a formerly strong healthy girl stuck in a wheelchair because of 'gender affirming' interventions.

Gender stinks.

@HomeHouse I'm sorry your brother is being a plonker.

My daughter nearly died because of a TW. I don't support transwomen in female spaces or sport. I have compassion for people who feel different. I am not a trans ally of any sort.

Enjoy your buns!

I think another problem is that different groups of people have different perceptions of the risk posed by transwomen in women's spaces. Many men just don't understand the level of fear that many women have of being in a vulnerable position with a transwoman because they personally don't feel any risk. So they have no opposition to transmen being in spaces for men either because they don't feel vulnerable.

@DeanElderberry I am sorry to hear about your friend/family member. That really is horrific. I hope that as medical science develops some improvement can be found for her.