Are younger generations more regressive?

[bryceQ]

I'm in my mid 30s, my brother is in his early 20s. He believes in gender ideology, TWAW... But also agrees there are sex differences in sport 🤷‍♀️. Knows I've faced a lot of street harassment by men which makes me feel unsafe... Knows our mum faced domestic violence. I think his opinion is quite confused, but also think his opinions in general lack maturity which is normal at his age.

Anyway.... Today he was saying that his girlfriend has decorated her room in very "girly colours" - and apparently gen z call this "girly core". I found it really irritating that this generation seem to cling to gender stereotypes in a way that seems so regressive. It feels like we are going the opposite way. I find it so perplexing, for all the obsession with what you identify as...., all of the identifications seem to be rooted in outdated stereotypes. Girls like pink 🙄

I know this is just a silly anecdote, but I wondered those of you with grown-up children or younger siblings, have you noticed this too?

You can call them “additional rights” and by doing so you are acknowledging you want to take them away.

So you are acknowledging that gender critical people want to take away codified human rights they already have. It would be great if gender critical people could at least admit this.

Sometimes the law is an ass. Sometimes it realises it has made an ass of itself, and repairs the damage done. Sometimes laws are made that turn out to be inadequately thought through and have unforeseen consequences. Sometimes, bad laws are repealed.

Fortunately. Otherwise I would still not be allowed own a horse worth more than £5. Repealing that law took away from Protestants the codified 'additional right' of nicking my horse.

@MarieDeGournay ”the law is an ass” is at least an original framing of “I oppose trans rights.”

No. Admitting they are additional rights is not “acknowledging you want to take them away.” That is a facile argument from a group of people who are only interested in vilifying women who are campaigning to find equitable solutions.

“So you are acknowledging that gender critical people want to take away codified human rights they already have. It would be great if gender critical people could at least admit this.”

This is your polarised and catrastrophised opinion. Equitable solutions have been suggested by women’s groups.

Your support of people having these additional rights that no one else has, is not dealing with equality. These rights have always been inequitable for women and women have been trying to point this out for over a decade.

No it just means that the law was found to be an ass in this case, was repealed, and I get to keep my £6 horse

Can you be more specific about which rights you think gender critical feminists want to take away from trans people, and why?

Maybe he's talking about the "right" to perv over women and girls in the toilets... 👀

I don't know why you think this is such a gotcha (1)

As a woman (sex based meaning) I am very conscious that the law has often encoded the right of male people to exclude, oppress and abuse women. No feminist who knows her history would ever accept "the law says it's ok for me to do this so it must be ok for me to do this" as a viable moral argument.

However, I'm glad you raised it because it gives me the opportunity to say that one of reasons I so strongly reject male appropriation of female language is that it separates us from our history and obscures the reality of who oppressed who, of who was given the power by law to oppress who.

No trans woman was ever denied the vote because (s)he was a woman. That was female people.
No trans woman was ever legally raped by (her) his husband. That was female people.
No trans woman was legally beaten using a stick no thicker than the thumb. That was female people.
No trans woman was ever legally locked in a scold's bridle. That was female people.
No trans woman has been forced to carry a baby to term because abortion is illegal. That was female people.

(1) This is a lie. Of course I know why you do it. It allows you to use emotive language like "remove human rights" as a thought-terminating tactic. The problem for you, and the reason why you laud "younger people" so much, is that the older one gets, the more one is aware of these tactics and the less one falls for them. My thoughts, in short, do not terminate because someone tells me I am in danger of thinking the unthinkable - I'll appreciate the concern but I will think just a little bit further to draw my own conclusions thank you.

@FlirtsWithRhinos you've listed a lot of human rights violations, all of which are bad, and none of which I agree with.

The EA2010 and GRA codifies some human rights

Some of those rights are specifially for transgender people.

You want to remove those rights because you disagree with them.

Which of these statements is a lie?

(1) This is a lie. Of course I know why you do it. It allows you to use emotive language like "remove human rights" as a thought-terminating tactic. The problem for you, and the reason why you laud "younger people" so much, is that the older one gets, the more one is aware of these tactics and the less one falls for them

YY, exactly.

dadJoke on every thread gets it really wrong about "gender critical" people.

Can you articulate what it is you think GC people believe, in a way that all GC people would agree with?

I assume you can't, because you seem either genuinely muddled (or dishonest) about it.

Also just saying "the EA" doesn't specify individual rights. You're incredibly bad at being specific about literally anything you claim to believe.

You keep bringing these act up as some kind of shield.

The equality act is clear that there are times male people can be excluded using the exceptions in the act. So therefore, any organisation or individual excluding these male people act lawfully using these exceptions. We just have to encourage organisations to use them.

What other human rights that are there for ‘equality’ can be revoked in this way? So either some people have tried to make these particular rights sound like they have more power than they do, or they are indeed additional rights and not treated as the foundational rights everyone has?

Just pointing to them doesn’t work in this case. There is context that just pointing to them as a ‘right’ ignores.

For example, if a male person was materially a female person, then no court in the country would treat them as male. Just another way that these ‘additional’ rights have negatively impacted female people.

You do know, dadjoke, that you can copy and paste from a legal bill? Why not to that, to specify what you're actually talking about? The Act(s) is online. You don't have to say "some rights", you can write them out here in the wording used in the Act (that's called "quoting a primary source").

I'm not sure if you are being disingenous, but do you agree that many gender critical people want to repeal the GRA2006, which codifies some rights for transgender people? Do you agree that the EA2010 codifies some rights for people with protected characteristic of gender reassigment, and that some gender critical people want to modify or repeal that act to lessen those rights?

I agree with this. Every generation rebels against a lot of the ideas, values, aesthetic etc of the generation before them and therefore I imagine TWAW and like, have had their peak some time ago.
And yes, I expect many who thought they were so edgy and enlightened with their TWAW stance in their teens/early twenties will soon be having families of their own and their views will change as they become more emotionally mature. I do think ultimately people like Emma Roberts, Dan Radcliffe etc, will feel embarrassed.

Yes, they can sometimes be excluded. That's how the EA2010 balances rights in this regard and many other. But that's not enough for gender critical people.

And you accept that they are rights, you think they have negatively impacted "female people" and you'd like to remove them. I'm really not sure how this is hard to understand. You don't like rights, you want to remove them.

Oh he means the exemptions? Wasn't clear. Presumably this is because he thinks there is no difference between man-gender and woman-gender so they don't apply because there's no distinction? I can't really tell the logic behind the vague statements so having to assume!

I can't answer that, because I literally have no idea what you mean by "gender critical people" and you won't say.

I have no idea what you mean by 'some rights' because you won't say. Can you copy from the relevant acts which rights you mean when you say this?

This kind of statement is really unhelpful, and it's unnecessary.

Most trans people genuinely do want to just live their lives, in a way they feel represents how they feel.

Now in my opinion they have usually been groomed to feel this way by virtue of being often rather young, rather lost, neurodivergent, not understanding that almost everyone hates their body and feels awkward through teen years and early adulthood, plus toxic online forums saying bollocks like "cis people never question their gender, if you even wonder it's because you aren't cis".

Where it all goes wrong is when people's need for validation for the serotonin bump drives their behaviour. When misgendering is taken as deliberate and oppressive rather than accidental, because really you don't pass that well and it's your rainbow army lying to you about how wonderful you look. When your desire to be validated leads you to enter female spaces (assuming you are a natal male) because it makes it all seem "real" to be in those spaces.

At the end of the day most trans people don't go in the ladies' "in order to" perve at girls. I accept that this can and does happen. However it also doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day your desire as a trans person to be validated doesn't outweigh women and girls' rights to privacy and dignity.

I have a close family member who has been taken in by this movement. They are absolutely not a pervert. They are a vulnerable young person who wanted to find somewhere to belong. It's a tragedy more than an outrage.

"You don't like rights, you want to remove them."

Well, this is untrue for me as a GC person. I like rights as a concept. I expect there are "some" rights where I might not agree with the specific allowances in every case - some planning laws are questionable, in my book. But as I've said, if you want to discuss a specific allowance or legal provision, to see if I "like" it, that's fine. But it helps if you cite it.

Oh dear Dad, read my post again! I didn't accuse you of lying...

I actually consider them privileges. Because to me and viewing it from
a industrial relations perspective, “rights” would mean those male people could NOT be excluded. Ever. Because to do so would violate their rights.

But this is not the case.

I used the term because you keep using it and therefore I assume that is all you understand.

“you think they have negatively impacted "female people" and you'd like to remove them. I'm really not sure how this is hard to understand. You don't like rights, you want to remove them.”

Again, you can keep repeating this but it is a falsity.

And please do keep posting about the acts and every time you do, someone will point out that male people can be excluded using the exceptions and we will go around again. But every time we do it, readers see the absolute terms you are trying to convey simply don’t stack up to the reality of the act.

(I may as well add - if you think I'm being "disingenuous" it's usually just me being ND - unless it's a crap attempt at humour on my part - I've heard this sometimes and sometimes try and qualify my posts but it doesn't always come across.

You can assume I'm engaging in good faith - I think I've made it clear before that I'm genuinely interested in knowing exactly what others' views are rather than assuming, as there are bound to be areas of agreement as well as disagreement.

I'm used to rude comments about my questions, I genuinely don't take it personally; but after a particular poster ignores polite questions you do start to wonder if it's an unwillingness to engage with neurodiverse people. Again, something I'd be interested in discussing without offence taken or given. But I fear that is asking for more self-reflection than people are comfortable with, particularly if young and unused to questioning their own positions).

Why do you think the right to force other people to pretend you are something you are not is a right anyone should have? If trans people have this right, why don't I?

@Diverze sure but the money propping up this ideology is coming from somewhere. I'm betting alot comes from the rich pervs