Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

[fromorbit]

Huge climb down. Looks like those pesky terf women were right all along AGAIN.

Saying that trans women are men is no longer "transphobic" according to Stonewall.

Dennis give good analysis and provides text:
1/ The gender borg have every right to be furious with @stonewalluk for sneakily ditching their belief in gender identity in their new definition of transphobia. Political transvestitism holds that men in dresses have soul-like female gender identities - Stonewall now denies this
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1885735444836388921.html

The reverse weasel move is an attempt to find a safe place to claim lost ground, but opens them up to attack from TA fanatics as well as looking more absurd to normal people. They staked everything on hating women and gay people and now want to retreat when it is unpopular.

“What I try to say is that there is a reality, and we as humans observe that reality, give it names, try to explain and so fir into a human perspective, but the perspective it being put in is very strongly shaped by religion and culture.”

“The problem with reality is that it does not care for our explanations, it simply is, and (through science) we are still trying to make sense of it. Also because there is much we have not made sence of, or we have not yet created the means to discern there may not be objetcive evidiece yet, but emperical, ... or we got it wrong.”

Yes. Reality abides. And the reality of human sex classes has abided since humans developed as a unique species.

Your future whataboutery is not going to change the reality of human sex until such time as a machine can break down a human into atoms and reconstruct that human from genetic code up with opposite sex body parts as an infant and reverse time so that every experience for that infant is completely new. That way the person will have only the experience of having a body the opposite sex to the original and will develop from
those experiences.

As you say, reality couldn’t give a fuck about what we feel we are, because reality involves our every experience as the person we are.

And your points miss seem to miss the most relevant points of why we have single sex provisions in the first place. The evidence needed to make strong and robust safeguarding decisions is already available.

It cannot be shown that any group of male people, regardless of the stage of transition, has the same risk of committing sex crimes as female people. It frankly is irrelevant to how that male person feels. The evidence has shown there they do not commit sex crimes at the same rate as female people.

It is also now well evidenced that male people retain male physical advantage over female people regardless of the stage of transition. They are stronger, they have leverage of their skeleton that gives them more power, including height. There is a quite a list.

Then there is the needs of female people to have space away from any male person. Male person, based on them having a body formed around the production of small gametes, regardless of whether those gametes are produced or not.

Can you please explain how future findings will change these three points?

Can you please explain why you believe society should accommodate male people accessing female single sex spaces based on future findings? What other laws and policies are based on future findings and not what we know here and now?

Hi,

I tried to explain that culture is leading more than biology. Not all countries have the same laws on single sex spaces. Laws are formed in the context of society based on the needs of society. Different societies, different laws, although laws can be more universal, but for instance a phenomenon like 'brexit' shows that sometimes a country does not want that.

A phenomenon like transgender is universal, as it is part of humanity, not country, not society, but how they are regarded is. So because of the difference of culture and laws, the one and same person is treated entirely different depending on which country he/she is in. As it is the same person, that person will also not become more or less criminal when crossing the border. So even group statistics may apply, whether they are more or somewhat less relevant depends on culture.

So an argument for or against something is then set, not based on the individual, but on the behaviour of groups, and thus basically on how the groups behave towards each other.

To me it seems that because of culture and history, some movements are more typical for the UK than elsewhere. It is what it is, but I think existence of transgender people also is what it is, just like that some groups believes that it is not.

To me it appears that in this forum there is some bias in one direction, which probably means that what I write here is not felt to be logical or reasonable, same as I find some things written in reply to me I do not find logical and reasonable. But that's the value of conversation, so I'm OK with that.

What makes you think that a self selecting group of men should be classified as women @Janine2363

It’s fine to throw about terms like “bias” but here, unlike other spaces, you’re actually expected to back up your argument and make a case to be taken seriously.

Male-bodied people are never women, irrespective of what country they are in.

This is a wonderfull post/reply. Many thanks for that.

I'm now searching for words, as to why, the way yuo write certainly strikes a chord, but as I don't know you, I don't want to sound presumptuous, so apologies if I am too forward, but to me you represent a person who is a bridge builder and who can effectuated change. By describing different angles and views that matter and include genetics, biology, culture, as it is and as it can be, but in realism and in balance.

In the story you reacted on, I mentioned the 'axiom' from maths, the position one starts from and on which the rest is build. A rigid single facet axiom will rule out a lot of possibilities, people may pick it because it make there position and concerns more solid.

I remembered one more thing from the time when I studied, coming from Philosophy: What is true, what is ethical, and social philosophy, e.g. human rights.

On what is real, one can take two oppsing points of view. Reality is outside of us, and by our senses limitations we cannot perceive it completely. Or as people we are creative, reality springs from our minds, but because of our limitations, we cannot fully form it.

In my work, I have to invent and create, so you can imagine a discussion between me and collegas, on "when does something exist" ? For me from the moment I imagine it, it will only take a bit of time until I have made it. For my colleague, only after I have made it. Just to show that I personally am very positively biased towards the individual and prefer a sociaty where people can bring what they have to offer, not reject them on what they have not.

The things you mentioned, are part of this process from the day humans started thinking and creating and trying to make sense of the world. The metaphores things in our religion, but also the roles and stereotypes we have created for ourselves. But as we learn more, are all the old ones still relevant, or can we change to adopt better ones. If not women would still be owned by men as in the roman society, and was maintained until a 100 years ago.

Also because of my work in a very much male environment, I take my strength based on who I am, more than 'the prizes' for every bit I did. And in this context I look at womanhood as something that is (must be) more than the biology of the body, but definetely including the biology of the mind.

So I am coming from an angle that transgender person can fit in there, without (for me) being required to be exactly this or that.

All the more supprising (to me) that, as you write, certain activest apparently write that sex does not matter. This is contradicting to what I write, because taking in all angles requitres, well taking in all angles, and very definetely not leaving out any concerns. And given society as it is, with the real problems it may have now, one has to recognize that and cast it in law in a way that works and expresses a balance

So I accept transgender as real, a need for recognition and supportive law, but also the reality that this requires a society where there is women's rights are protected and the belief that can be achieved without complete sex based seggragation, but separation where it is appropriate. And where law has some guards against abuse by bad actors. To accomplish this, there's no need to prove anything but that transgender people are just that: transgender people.

"Not all countries have the same laws on single sex spaces. Laws are formed in the context of society based on the needs of society."

Would you like to list the countries that don't have laws on single sex spaces that they should remain single sex? Considering that there seems to be a fairly constant stream of countries revoking the laws that they can easily and quickly do so for now on self id, and single sex spaces, I expect that your reliance on these will be disappointing for supporting your arguments in the future.

And please explain this "A phenomenon like transgender is universal, as it is part of humanity".

How is transgender a universal phenomenon? Please explain this. Are you leveraging other cultural social values that have recently been politicised and misrepresented in this statement? Because to me, you seem to be using a false 'appeal to history and culture' here. But I am happy to see how you work this through with evidence and with clear examples and details.

Please link us up to the evidence. If I have missed it or forgotten where you have posted it, please remind me where I can find your post with this evidence.

To accomplish this, there's no need to prove anything but that transgender people are just that: transgender people.

What is your working definition of a transgender person?

I look forward to this too.

it all sounds wonderful, until you point out the lack of coherent definition.

I agree to some extent. People shouldn't oppose any suggestion that someone could have been gay, esp as for women in particular the conventions of romantic friendship could be a useful mask for lesbians, and if everyone took assertions that people were 'just friends' at face value, most actual lesbian relationships would probably be missed. At the same time, it shouldn't be used to imply that platonic friendship is always sexual, it's a lovely thing in its own right obvs.

Ir can be more complex though : the political lesbian/woman-identified woman/lesbian continuum 1970 s style stuff often tried to subsume both platonic and romantic female-female relationships under the banner of 'lesbian'. Not v helpful ofc, as actual lesbians again had lesbianism defined as platonic (political lesbians who were straight disliked defining lesbianism by sexual attraction) & it implied that straight women who'd rather build lives based on female friendship were the same thing as lesbians.

I really don't think that is happening now though. Just looking at Netflix Female Friendship shows loads of shows w close platonic friendships, about both teen girls & adults.
^https://www.netflix.com/gb/browse/genre/1143288^
Over here we've had the hugely popular Derry Girls & We Are Lady Parts, ok both focus on group friendships, but they are still about friendship. Both feature lesbian characters who later get gfs- it doesn't have to be zero sum between lesbian relationships & female friendship ofc, & I don't think TV is treating it that way.

@Janine2363
The same person might be treated differently in different countries due to differences in the law. The impact they have on others remains the same though. It doesn't matter if the severely traumatised girls in my family encounter men - no matter how those identify - in a public toilet in the UK, Germany, Spain, India or wherever. Due to the impact of male violence on their brains, these girls are biologically programmed to have such an intense fear reaction that they will be unable to use that toilet.

Some countries care more about women's rights than others. Some countries have stronger feminist movements than others. The reality that many traumatised women and girls cannot share intimate spaces with men is universal though, because it relies on the women's and girls' survival instinct - something culture has no impact on.