Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”

1000 replies

ConversingWithStrangers · 30/12/2024 10:45

The only thing I can think of is posting on a UK sub about male violence. A man said that it’s not just men who have a problem with being violent because he’d been assaulted by a trans woman. I replied, “how did you know your assailant was trans?”.

They literally have subs for men to masturbate to videos of women who have a look of being “dead behind the eyes” they’ve been abused so much.

(It’s either that or somebody doesn’t like my crochet advice).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 04/01/2025 07:29

TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged · 04/01/2025 04:03

Yes, I have and I'm very grateful for your post of 3/1/2025 @ 18:26, with your explanation of your beliefs about the existence of subconsious sex.
This, IMO, meets the criteria for internal coherence which is required in UK legal system for a belief to be WORIADS, and I think it might be the first time I've come across such on these boards.
You've given me alot to think about with your description of your beliefs about subconcious sex, in terms of how we rub along together in society - people like you who believe in subconsious sex and it's centrality to personhood, and people like me who think this so-called "subconcious sex" is a misapprehension of some combination of externally imposed sex-based expectations, and internal personality traits.
I also think you've very succinctly hit upon the nub of the issue with this question posted on 3/1/2025 @ 20:02 -:
"They are not female according to sex as observed / assigned / registered at birth but they are female according to subconscious/ psychological sex.
Why do you think that the former should automatically be prioritised over the latter in social / legal policy ?
why does that look like justice to you?"
This is a good question and I'll be thinking about this for a while.
But my preliminary response would be to lean on empirical data. The first that come to mind are the results of the Swedish population based matched cohort study which was published in 2011, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043071/
The findings of this study demonstrate that trans women follow male patterns of offending for violent and sexually violent crimes, even decades after transition.
When it comes to sincerely held beliefs, in a pluralistic society, I think we have to fall back on emprirical data (I'm aware that post-structuralist thought, and following on from this, Queer Theory, seeks to "disrupt" empiricism, but I think this serves the most powerful in society and not the least - therefore, IMO, not, as you put it, what justice looks like).

I didn't know that coherence was a requirement for something to be WORIADS.

That makes it even more bonkers that "humans can change sex" was just assumed to be WORIADS but "humans can't change sex" was initially considered not to be.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 07:36

Why do you think the original meaning of woman was defined by karyotypes and didn’t include trans women?

Because "trans women" are a type of man, not a type of woman. Hope that helps.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 07:37

Lostcat · 03/01/2025 22:40

I have never seen anyone on these boards advocating for generalised "sex segregation" in society. Only for single-sex provision in certain quite specific situations

Right. So sex assignment really has very little relevance compared to gender in the vast majority of social circumstances . There are only a very select few areas where it is significant- (the biggest one being healthcare)
so what is all this stuff about how “gender ideology is causing society to collapse and destroying the meaning of all words?”
And , for example, what was all the handwringing on mumsnet the other day about how trans people can change the f or m marker on their passport ? What‘s that that got to do with society collapsing because of who might get who pregnant? 😂

Edited

'And , for example, what was all the handwringing on mumsnet the other day about how trans people can change the f or m marker on their passport ?'

Crikey. The disdain for people who don't agree with you literally drips off posts like these.

Passports are Identification documents. This was explained to this poster and others time and time again on that thread.

A male person can present a passport for identification purposes to access female only spaces as a very obvious example. If a male person has changed their birth certificate and their other ID they can also fraudulently be employed when a role has been set aside for only a female person. As in the case of Wadhwa and the ERCC.

handwringing eh? It could be said that that is another misogynist term because it has been associated with female anxiety.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 07:45

Lostcat · 03/01/2025 23:25

… Preventing violence, protecting female “dignity” and “privacy” (we’ve heard those words a lot on this thread too) - some might say honour perhaps? , and safeguarding females against any unanticipated impregnations…

Yes thank god for all that sex segregation, it sounds very safe/ protective for women/
girls, and not at all heteronormative…

And this post shows the lesbophobia that lies at the foundations of the philosophical beliefs that justify prioritising gender over sex when sex matters.

We see this frequently, it is a feature not a bug. And once you have seen it, you cannot miss it.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 07:50

FlirtsWithRhinos · 03/01/2025 23:35

You are mixing up (I hope unconsciously rather than maliciously) two different concepts of gender.

The first, the one that is relevant in the majority of social situations, is the gender constructs that others project onto us because of our sex. These affect how we are seen and treated regardless of how we may see ourselves, and what our actual abilities, preferences and needs are.

The second is the self-identified unconscious sex which some people (trans or otherwise) believe they have. This may be related to the gender constructs above in that a person's belief about their own gender is formed by feeling an alignment to one of these external gender constructs, but crucially this gender is not something projected onto a person by others regardless of who they actually are, but a belief of the person about their own self that therefore fully aligns to who they are.

Pretending that women who suffer the limitations of having the external constructs of womangender imposed on them and want to escape them are somehow the same people with the same needs and challenges as trans women who embrace those constructs and wish to be seen exactly as that womangender is disingenuous in the extreme.

I don't believe it is disingenuity behind this thinking anymore Flirts, it is disconnected thinking.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 07:51

It's both.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 07:53

It's appropriate that it's on this Reddit thread, because it's exceedingly common to see it there.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 08:01

Lostcat · 03/01/2025 23:40

the gender constructs that others project onto us because of our sex.

Ah no this isn’t how it works. We rarely inspect someone’s genitals to assign gender in everyday situations. Gender doesn’t derive from sex- sex derives from gender - the psychological processes / social cues by which we recognise and assign identities to ourselves and others .,

Edited

This post hinges on 'genital inspections'. Just a reminder, it is highly likely that female people can accurately understand the sex of a male person without 'genital inspections'. And remember, there is now a sub group of male people who have no external male genitals, and they are still highly likely to be correctly sexed.

So this attempt at arguing that sex derives from gender fails at the first hurdle.

It also keeps coming back to this false logic of 'subconscious sex' in my opinion. And subconscious sex simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it is assigning a 'sexed' reaction subconsciously where a male person can claim their subconscious is female. This is not possible because that male person's subconscious has been shaped by all the interactions in the world as person with a male body. Never once has it interacted and interpreted the world as a person with a female body.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 08:02

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 07:51

It's both.

Yes. It could be both.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 08:11

It’s as acceptable as it is to say “I’m not interested because you are fat.”
In other words it may be a honest statement of attraction but it’s unecessarily cruel.
I’m not interested” suffices just as well without being gratuitously hurtful ,

It's really not the same thing at all Confused lesbians are attracted to women of all body shapes. They aren't attracted to men, whatever those men may feel about their "gender".

So you don't believe it's ok for lesbians to be honest about being a lesbian, they have to cover that up? Sounds homophobic.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 08:16

@Datun said it best.

So does that include lesbians who are attracted to trans women and say they are lesbians?

Lol. In your world, that could be two men.

In your world, two men fellating each other could be called lesbian sex.

Equally so could a man and a woman having sex to conceive a baby.

It's risible jibber jabber.

DowntonCrabbie · 04/01/2025 08:47

Lostcat · 04/01/2025 00:13

“Subconscious sex" is a term primarily used within transgender discussions , referring to an individual's deeply ingrained sense of their own gender identity, often described as the "feeling" of what sex their body should be on a subconscious level.
Someone assigned female at birth might have a "subconscious sex" of male, meaning their brain primarily experiences itself as male despite their physical body being female.

Meaningless word salad. Subconscious is something you are unaware of. You're trying to argue that males are actually female because if feelings that they don't know they have.

Nothing you say ever makes any sense in reality. Not a thing.

DowntonCrabbie · 04/01/2025 08:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lostcat · 04/01/2025 09:15

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 08:11

It’s as acceptable as it is to say “I’m not interested because you are fat.”
In other words it may be a honest statement of attraction but it’s unecessarily cruel.
I’m not interested” suffices just as well without being gratuitously hurtful ,

It's really not the same thing at all Confused lesbians are attracted to women of all body shapes. They aren't attracted to men, whatever those men may feel about their "gender".

So you don't believe it's ok for lesbians to be honest about being a lesbian, they have to cover that up? Sounds homophobic.

lesbians are attracted to women of all body shapes

what a strange thing to say. What all of them?

DowntonCrabbie · 04/01/2025 09:21

Lostcat · 04/01/2025 09:15

lesbians are attracted to women of all body shapes

what a strange thing to say. What all of them?

Yes. Lesbians, as a group, are attracted to women of all body shapes. But not male ones

You really do struggle with language, don't you?

Surf2Live · 04/01/2025 09:21

Lostcat · 03/01/2025 19:32

You do realise that all kinds of psychological conditions/ functions have a physical basis/ cause right? (And these physical aspects can be observed/ identified/ measured - sometimes they can be altered with medical interventions , sometimes they can’t at least within the context of current medical technologies. )
Or perhaps you don’t understand these things ? The distinction you are drawing is really very simplistic and demonstrates very little understanding of science. It really is possible to educate yourself before you form strong opinions about something you don’t understand.
Im sorry as I know that sounds patronising but I really don’t know how else to say it other than to be blunt.

Edited

And yet no physical basis for gender dysphoria has been found. Indeed, researchers at UCLA who began research to identify if a neurobiological cause can be found for transgenderism were told by LGBTQ activists to halt their research. The research was then halted in 2021.

No neurobiological cause for transgenderism has been found.

The activists don't want this research done because they are afraid it will show there is no physical neurobiological difference.

If there was a physical difference in brains of transgender and not transgender people, then part of the diagnosis for gender dysphoria would be MRI scans of brains. That would ensure that no young people have puberty blocked, become infertile, have stunted brain development, suffer osteoporosis and cardiovascular issues, then turn out to be not transgender at all and detransition then to sue governments. That could all be avoided if only there was a physical diagnostic tool.

So your claim that the psychological condition of gender dysphoria has a physical cause is NOT backed up by research. Not only that, but activists blocked such research from proceeding.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 09:28

lesbians are attracted to women of all body shapes

what a strange thing to say. What all of them?

Logic doesn't appear to be a personal strength of yours, but no, the point is that "not being attracted to fat people" isn't part of the definition of being a lesbian. Some are, some aren't. Whereas not being attracted to men is a core component.

We call being attracted to both sexes "bisexual".

DowntonCrabbie · 04/01/2025 09:29

Lostcat doesn't understand the word bisexual.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/01/2025 09:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Datun · 04/01/2025 09:35

The reason 'subconscious sex', is, among other things, patently bollocks, is the 100% maleness of the people who are meant to be experiencing it.

The affinity for, or empathy with, women couldn't be more absent.

Targeting lesbians, violating women's boundaries, riding rough shod over women's rights, privacy and dignity, driving a cart and horse through child safeguarding, gleefully decimating female sport, and sending horrific rape and death threats to any woman who disagrees.

If there was such a daft thing as subconscious sex, they're experiencing the absolute worst of the uber male version of it.

Personally, I believe that is also the slightly more than subconscious state of lostcat, who is pathologically unable to focus on woman at all!

Women, any woman, could not be less relevant to them.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 09:36

“Subconscious sex" is a term primarily used within transgender discussions , referring to an individual's deeply ingrained sense of their own gender identity, often described as the "feeling" of what sex their body should be on a subconscious level."

"Someone assigned female at birth might have a "subconscious sex" of male, meaning their brain primarily experiences itself as male despite their physical body being female."

It is important for readers to see these discussion cycles. It does follow a loose script.

In this case, we are now discussing the potential of a person's 'subconscious' sex. A 'subconscious sex' which is only based on what they believe the opposite sex's reactions to the world would be.

Nothing posted about 'subconscious sex' provides and foundation to why any policy where sex matters should give priority at all to gender. In fact, there is not even logic to support a 'subconscious sex' because a male person can only ever imagine how a female person would interact with the world.

If someone wants to categorise that variation of thought, it can only ever be grouped loosely into 'a male person's belief in how a female person interacts with the world that is not ever based in reality'. This category does not fit into the female person group and it has no overlapping to make any sub group. However, the people who discuss this group as being a valid sub group in the grouping of female people will resort to emotionally manipulative tactics to argue that it is a valid sub group.

That is then why we have to have the discussions about how 'sex segregation' is not important in society in any case, so therefore a person's gender should be the only thing considered in all things non-medical.

That is also why the questions relating to sports are ignored. And often the posts pointing out that there are 130+ genders, including those genders who can change genders regularly and frequently throughout the day.

All while gender fluidity is then used to scaffold the discussion about detransitioners. But is 'gender' if fluid, how can anyone then say that a male who has claimed that they have a 'subconscious' belief that they are female know what is their male experience and what is their female experience?

Usually there is also included a philosophical theoretical approach that revolves around 'I feel I am this thing, therefore I am this thing'. (thing being a concept) This approach is used as an emotionally manipulative crutch because it relies on the reader to accept that the person who is saying they 'are' something they are materially not, is what they say they are. It is circular. If I say I am this concept, I am that concept because all that concept is built on is belief that you are that concept and acting as if you are that concept or something similar.

Either way, the motivation is that a person who believes that they are something they materially are not needs to be treated as if their belief is real.

Because it then cycles back to 'Just because you say it is impossible, this is that person's life and it is their personal material reality. You just cannot experience it therefore you shouldn't be saying it is impossible'. And 'you just aren't open to other people's possibilities'.

It really is an incoherent theory.

There is always running through these discussions the very emotive points being raised about how distressing it is for people with a particular gender identity. And that we should be focused on making those people happy through accepting their beliefs as being the priority given in policy, law and in the social sphere.

Then comes the distraction about the evolution of the meanings of words and what do words mean anyway, the meanings of words change and apparently if a group changes the meanings of those words society must surely accept that and move on.

Which leads to the discussion about the meaning of the word female and male. Which leads to the mischaracterisation of what people who believe that humans cannot change sex believe.

Of course, most developmental biologists and medical science experts will confirm that the sex category of a human body is based on whether the body is formed around the production of large or small gametes and that the past, current or future production status of those gametes in that body does not change the categorisation. This has become easier with modern technology, but it can also be said that medieval doctors would have used this form of categorisation within the limitations of their discovery ability.

This discussion on the meaning of words can be referenced to philosophical streams of thought such as queer theory which seeks to destabilise the establishment, ie. the established meanings of words and the established facts of biological science.

It was why we had the very long discussion about who are lesbians and who are not.

Plus don't forget that same sex orientations are an important false comparator for those trying to argue that gender should be prioritised over people's sex categories. And it is a false comparator. But we still see 'being trans is innate just like sexual orientation'.

However, getting back to words, the script then follows that in any case a group of people can always attribute different meanings to the established words and that is ok, isn't it? Some transgender people can use the word 'sex' and some use the word 'gender' to mean the same thing and that should be acceptable to society. All while ignoring the ramifications on laws, policies and society in general if even within this specific group of people there is a lack of coherency in the usage of words, let alone rendering laws and policies meaningless with that lack of coherency.

The script avoids any discussion on the very real outcomes of all this philosophical theorising that has already been accepted as material reality. Sports, prisons, single sex spaces. And irreversible medical treatments that being done based on a philosophical belief - and one that is fluid.

Of course, that fluidity gets minimised and quickly moved on from because it cracks open the foundation to show there is no solid foundation underpinning the theories.

And so the script rolls on.

Helleofabore · 04/01/2025 09:37

Well, I have finished reading last night's instalment and it was very illustrative of that disconnected thinking.

The fallacies were there, of course. But it was that hypocrisy that again showed up where a poster claimed that their words were being misrepresented, when they had just been in a discussion about misrepresenting someone else and making a strong judgement against them for the misrepresentation that only they had made.

Lostcat · 04/01/2025 09:39

Heggettypeg · 04/01/2025 01:43

This is the bit I struggle to get my head round - the content of an "experience of being female" in the absence of being in a female body. The closest I can get to it is a few times when I have dreamed I am a man, but that's still a "woman's dream about being a man" with no way of knowing that it correlates in the least to any man's experience of being a man.

Do I recollect you to say you are not a transwoman? If so, it's probably unfair to ask you to explain the female without female body thing as we are both wrestling with something we haven't personally experienced. Have any of the transwomen you know been more illuminating on the subject?

Hey sorry I went to sleep.

Im trying to think how to explain it. I think the difficulty is that people are imagining that “feeling like a woman/ female” must have some kind of specific quality to it compared to “feeling like a male”- eg feeling like a woman gives you pins and needles in your left foot (to give a ridiculous example).

But it’s not that - it’s simply the recognition/ “knowing” / apprehension of self as female- itself. That’s it.

in the same way that I know I’m a woman, and (I’m guessing you’re female)- you know that you are a woman.

People who are not trans take this experience entirely for granted- it’s not something that we think about a lot, or imagine feels like anything in particular, but of course it’s always there, and it affects our identity and interactions with others. (Eg When people talk about me I expect them to use female pronouns because I know I am female).

Non-trans people assume that this “knowing” (knowing of sex, which is what some people call gender) comes simply/ logically / directly from being born female, and for most people these things are aligned.
But for trans people, these things - natal sex- and “knowing” what sex they are (eg gender) , are not aligned. We don’t know why, but it is very possible that there is a durable biological/ development underpinning to this.

Because it makes no sense to a non-trans person that “knowing sex” and “natal sex” might not be aligned , there’s also a fixation on the idea that experiencing “knowing sex” as different to natal sex must be “wrong”, “a fallacy”, “delusional”. But these are all just value judgements that really have no place in the conversation or meaning. It’s not “wrong” for gender and sex to be mismatched, it’s simply different. We assume that natal sex and gender (knowing sex) must be aligned because that’s how it is for us. But they arent always aligned . And it just is what it is.

It’s the same in discussions about DSDs . people say “oh their body was meant to develop this way, but it went wrong”. Again this idea of “right” and “wrong” really just comes from what’s “typical” or what “usually”happens. But some people just don’t develop that way- their bodies are different and they develop differently, and that’s just all there is to it.

DowntonCrabbie · 04/01/2025 09:44

But their bodies are not different, at all. And we don't "know" we are women, we don't have a sense of ourselves as women. We just ARE women. Just as transwomen just ARE men.

And as you've already said, non trans people can't ever know what it feels like to be trans (your words). And you've said you are not trans. So YOU can never know what it feels like to be trans....so why in the fuck are you repeatedly explaining to us all what it feels like to be trans, when you've already said you can't possibly know that?

Datun · 04/01/2025 09:47

Lostcat · 04/01/2025 09:39

Hey sorry I went to sleep.

Im trying to think how to explain it. I think the difficulty is that people are imagining that “feeling like a woman/ female” must have some kind of specific quality to it compared to “feeling like a male”- eg feeling like a woman gives you pins and needles in your left foot (to give a ridiculous example).

But it’s not that - it’s simply the recognition/ “knowing” / apprehension of self as female- itself. That’s it.

in the same way that I know I’m a woman, and (I’m guessing you’re female)- you know that you are a woman.

People who are not trans take this experience entirely for granted- it’s not something that we think about a lot, or imagine feels like anything in particular, but of course it’s always there, and it affects our identity and interactions with others. (Eg When people talk about me I expect them to use female pronouns because I know I am female).

Non-trans people assume that this “knowing” (knowing of sex, which is what some people call gender) comes simply/ logically / directly from being born female, and for most people these things are aligned.
But for trans people, these things - natal sex- and “knowing” what sex they are (eg gender) , are not aligned. We don’t know why, but it is very possible that there is a durable biological/ development underpinning to this.

Because it makes no sense to a non-trans person that “knowing sex” and “natal sex” might not be aligned , there’s also a fixation on the idea that experiencing “knowing sex” as different to natal sex must be “wrong”, “a fallacy”, “delusional”. But these are all just value judgements that really have no place in the conversation or meaning. It’s not “wrong” for gender and sex to be mismatched, it’s simply different. We assume that natal sex and gender (knowing sex) must be aligned because that’s how it is for us. But they arent always aligned . And it just is what it is.

It’s the same in discussions about DSDs . people say “oh their body was meant to develop this way, but it went wrong”. Again this idea of “right” and “wrong” really just comes from what’s “typical” or what “usually”happens. But some people just don’t develop that way- their bodies are different and they develop differently, and that’s just all there is to it.

Edited

We don't have to guess, we can literally take it from the horses mouth.

Not just men who are trans, but men who have written extensively about it.

Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”
Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”
Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.