Is it too early for a post mortem?

[Appalonia]

So, now that America has categorically rejected transgender ideology, which I do think will affect the rest of the world, is now the time to ascertain HOW did so many institutions, including the Democratic and Labour Parties get so completely bamboozled by this ideology? Which is crazy, not based in material reality, disadvantages half of the population, has physically damaged thousands of young people, and that they didn't think that people would see through it?

I know a lot of people dislike Matt Walsh, but his documentary, What is a Woman, was jaw dropping! We must NEVER let this dangerous idiocy happen again ( and yes I know it's not over...)

Talking of "denying reality and facts" thanks for this, it is indeed interesting. I had a feeling this would continue to be the narrative from many (hopefully not from everyone, as it is likely to ensure yet more of the same in return). It's infuriating. Still a case of really not comprehending a lot of the problem with the approach and doubling down.

and largely gave up at the point where male puberty would normally proceed.

So why did you need puberty blockers then? You can’t even get your own narrative consistent, let alone your arguments for why males should be in women’s spaces.

the manifold nature of womanhood in greater depth

Jesus

I have done no such thing and you seem to be projecting here.

I'm afraid I am not a very good stand-in for an amorphous, generic 'unreasonable TRA' stance you seem to be arguing against.

Only a person from Berwick-Upon-Tweed can experience life as a person from Berwick-upon-Tweed. If a person was born in Dudley, moved to Berwick-Upon-Tweed at a young age, integrated into the local community and lived almost their entire life in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, do their experiences more closely match those of a person who has lived all their life in Dudley or all their life in Berwick-Upon-Tweed?

Will the shape of their daily life not match that of people in Berwick-Upon-Tweed?

Sigh.
You really do see womanhood as something you can inhabit, don't you?

It has nothing to do with being female, in your view.

It has everything to do with it in mine.

"I crushed every part of myself down as small as I could and set aside the nuances of my own experiences until the world was ready to consider the manifold nature of womanhood in greater depth."

So, have we now moved from woman being a constellation of data points that correlate to being a woman to this?

A male with a medical condition where puberty is delayed is and always will be male. A boy and then a man. No matter what philosophical theory you try to use to change reality.

And no matter what emotionally manipulative sentences are used to describe a personal version of reality that doesn’t reflect the material and objective reality. And no male who celebrates being considered an ‘elder’ in their community that continues to describe themselves as a woman should be anywhere near children and vulnerable young people.

It seems we need a reminder on every x pages:

No male can ever experience life as a woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.
Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is. How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome. And I consider the outcome can only be described as misogyny.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.
How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid.

They will always be a person who was born in Dudley and experienced life for what was it, 15 years? 16?, as living in Dudley before moving elsewhere.

And in your case, you still have a male body that you have modified to resemble a female body. But it was never a female body and no amount of describing yourself as female and making physical changes will change material reality.

A male person with extreme body modifications and a medical condition requiring treatment is only ever a male person with extreme body modifications. Never female. And despite all the well meaning people who affirm them, and the personalised use of language making specific words meaningless collectively, never a girl and never a woman.

And unless you have developed a machine that will resemble your body at atomic level like a Star Trek transporter, and that gives you a personally tailored timeline that allows you to reverse time to be reborn and start again, being male and living a male conceptualised version of being female is the only material reality you can claim.

If you (general you) make every female single sex space you enter mixed sex. Then yes, you do trample over the rights of female people.

And if you (generally) have entered single sex spaces meant for female people as a male at any time in the past (after about 8 yrs old and not in a legitimate work capacity ), you have trampled on the rights and needs of female people as Gail has said.

Both male and female people can experience life as a person from Berwick-upon-Tweed, but a trans woman can never experience life as a female person and a female person can never experience life as a trans woman because the two things are mutually exclusive. Only male people can be trans women, and all trans women are male. So your analogy doesn't work.

I have just caught up with the previous pages.

I see that no sacrifices have been forthcoming, as expected. It is almost like those leaves blew away on that wind.

It is almost like the ‘sacrifices’ that male people discuss when focusing on the issues of female people having specific rights go one way and one way only. Yet some people feel that they can disguise that fact with hyperbole and what they consider intellectual conceptualisation.

Don’f forget the dismissal of the truth regarding the rights of female people through platitudes such as ‘Rights for marginalised people aren't a zero-sum scenario.’ Empty platitudes that feed the psyche of people who seem impoverished of true understanding but instead like to intellectualise themselves into categories that have no true claim to.

The outcome is always the same though. The sacrifices are always demanded and too often supplied from female people to male people.

But, with respect, you’re not living in Berwick-on Tweed, you’re living in a facsimile that you think approximates to living in Berwick-on-Tweed - without ever visiting

It is more like someone being born in Dudley, but calling it Berwick-upon-Tweed and insisting that everyone, including the government, comply with their demand that they are living in B-u-Tweed. They want all the records to be changed, they want their claim to be affirmed.

It could be said they live in a specific suburb of Dudley that they have demanded to be named Berwick-upon-Tweed and act as if that has been ratified officially. They can claim to be a respected elder of that suburb even.

However, they still live in Dudley. They were born in Dudley and have never lived in Berwick upon Tweed.

Sort of, except that someone who lives in Dudley can actually move to Berwick-upon-Tweed. They can't become someone who was born and raised in Berwick-upon-Tweed, but they can become someone who lives in Berwick-upon-Tweed. Whereas male people can't ever become female.

The analogy was always crap because of that very reason and ofhers.

It was created to give the implication that an impossible act is comparative to one that is very possible and could be done.

It failed on numerous aspects though. It also relied on the person as being an infant so as to not have the lived experience of living in Dudley when moving to Berwick which we know is not the truth either.

It's simple, just move counties, talk in a different accent and never tell anyone you are from Dudley, they will never know.

And if you get outed as from Dudley then take them to court for miscountying or something.

Can you imagine a law that says if you are unhappy about being born in Dudley you can get it amended to say you were from Berwick on Tweed if you feel like it or say you want to one day live there?

Well with this government, I suppose, anything is possible.

Can you imagine a law that says if you are unhappy about being born in Dudley you can get it amended to say you were from Berwick on Tweed if you feel like it or say you want to one day live there?

The point regarding the inability to change Place of Birth on a Birth Certificate was brought up in Parliament recently (pre election) and of course that is not allowed and won't be because it's a factual record - oh the fucking irony.

Why can't I decide I want to be a Cockney and was therefore born within the sound of Bow Bells and have my Place of Birth altered to reflect that? I mean I can do all the rhyming slang and the accent and everything?

Why can't I claim I was born in another country so I can avail myself of dual nationality?

Why can my mother's history regarding the sex of the child she gave birth to be re-written but not the place she gave birth to said child?

That’s just about the lamest analogy I’ve ever encountered.

The bottom of the barrel is well and truly being scraped borntobequiet.

I think Aidan O’Neill KC said it all in court the other day when he spoke about the facts of biological reality Vs the fantasies of legal fiction.

Adult human females know biological reality. MWTTAW are fantasists who can never experience that biological reality.

I just caught up, and read with interest @ButterflyHatched 's description of BH's experiences.

Butterfly in essence claims to have a difference of sexual development that manifests as a persistent female gender identity from infancy and a delayed and attenuated male puberty. Butterfly might be right or wrong about this: it doesn't matter.

I agree that people with DSDs should be able to choose their legal sex, because what else are they going to do? They have physical attributes that are out of whack with each other and may need to select treatment options.

But they are only 0.018% of the population. Trans people are mostly drawn from the other 99.982%, who have developed normally in accordance with karyotype. So Butterfly's story does not cast any light on the issue at all. The issue being, people who claim extraordinary rights, on the basis of (unprovable) gender identity alone.

And even if there is some sort of inner mental attribute that usually is quite similar to people of the same sex as you but sometimes is more like that of the other sex, and even if it were 5%, or 25%, or 45%, it is STILL a different thing to actually being female- (or male-) bodied.

This hypothetical cross-sex identity does not mean you somehow live the actual life of the opposite sex, nor in the case of people who are not female but believe their inner person is a woman, suffer the actual challenges (and benefits) of womanhood that might justify their admitance to female-only resources, or allow them to speak from the perspective of a woman.

Femaleness is an embodied reality with physical and social consequences. Female-only provisions exist to mitigate the marginalising of female people. Dress the word "woman" up however you want, it doesn't change the fact of and the existence of material female bodies, nor the fact that this has consequnces for the people who have/are those bodies.

I have no issue with the possibility of there being a way to class humans based on some newly discovered commonality of mind, but it's an additional thing, a new aspect of people entirely separate to the existence of sex and to the existing sex-based provisions. It's the overwriting of sex and of sex-based protections and language, the swapping in of mental identity, and the appropriation of rights, lamnguage and history that goes with it, that I reject. Not reject on the grounds of bias or lack of understanding, but simply because to say the two are interchageable in meaning or consequence is demonstrably false, and it is harmful to women socially, politically, mentally and at times physically to impose it,

I have no time for gender identity. For people with DSDs, perceived GI can be a therapeutic tool for picking the treatment option that's right for them. For everyone else, the existence of GI is an unfalsifiable proposition, and therefore not worth debating. Not all trans people believe in it. Some say 'I feel compelled to do this: that is all'. Respect. But they haven't changed sex (in fairness, they don't necessarily claim that either) and there is no justification for special legal arrangements.

@ButterflyHatched again, I ask you, what sacrifices have you made?