Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

How to respond to "oh there's always bad apples that ruin things for everyone" and "well women do that too" ?

106 replies

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 13:49

How to respond to this?

Discussed the trans issue.

I said I'm really concerned about women's safety in eg changing rooms. Any man can come in now and flash their penis and anyone who complains is a transphobe.
Response: well nobody should be flashing their penis around. There's always a bad apple in every barrel
Me: but there's now no recourse to complain without be labelled transphobic
Response: well there'll always be people who'll take advantage

Me: no woman now can get changed in M&S changing rooms without worrying about a man opening their curtain, pretending it's a mistake
Response: well women can be voyeurs too
Me: but women don't rape other women
Response: yes they do

Me: muslim women now can't use public toilets as men are allowed in
Response: so should everyone use the toilet of their birth sex?
Me: yes
Response: what about Butch lesbians who look masculine and are then reported for using women's toilets. And what about women living as men ; should they frighten women by using female toilets?
Me: everyone knows what a woman looks like vs what a man looks like.
Response: what about that Butch lesbian who was asked to leave?

I don't know what else to say. Apart from "seriously are you fucking serious?"

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:48

girljulian · 03/02/2025 14:16

You can't win every argument. I can't really see anything wrong with any of these answers.

My answers or their answers?

Regardless, yes, you're right, I can't win every argument.

OP posts:
Toseland · 03/02/2025 14:49

ScarlettSunset · 03/02/2025 13:57

I should think the answer is that everyone managed just fine until not so long ago, before gender ideology became a craze that swept the world.

These issues have only been inflicted on women very recently.

No it's not just recently - I was sexually harrassed by men dressed-up as 'sexy' women four times as a child through the 1970s.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/02/2025 14:49

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:42

That's what I said.
They said no, any object/ body part is rape

Well they’re factually wrong on that

section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

one way is to ask why it’s not ok to ask your DP/DH to join you in women’s spaces then. After all you know he’s fine and not a bad apple so other women should have no objection right? In fact ask them why they think we have single sex spaces at all

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

Greyskybluesky · 03/02/2025 14:51

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:42

That's what I said.
They said no, any object/ body part is rape

Legal definition: "Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."

Your friend is confusing it with assault by penetration.

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:51

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 03/02/2025 14:22

Is your interlocutor a woman? If so, she will probably change her mind when she or someone near her encounters reality.

If it’s a man, I’m afraid thé Mandy Rice Davies response is the only one that covers everything ( ‘He would say that, wouldn’t he?)

She has lots of trans friends

But is so considerate of others and a women's rights activist. And a scientist.

Which makes it even more unnerving to hear her saying "assigned X at birth" and "every embryo is female at conception"

OP posts:
Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/02/2025 14:54

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:51

She has lots of trans friends

But is so considerate of others and a women's rights activist. And a scientist.

Which makes it even more unnerving to hear her saying "assigned X at birth" and "every embryo is female at conception"

Ask her for the NHS guidelines on “how to assign sex at birth”

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:54

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/02/2025 14:49

Well they’re factually wrong on that

section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

one way is to ask why it’s not ok to ask your DP/DH to join you in women’s spaces then. After all you know he’s fine and not a bad apple so other women should have no objection right? In fact ask them why they think we have single sex spaces at all

I said what if my DH said he was a woman
Response: I'd say great
Me: what if he then wanted to join women's boxing
Response: hmmm that's more complicated. It's a grey area and there's no right or wrong. But (insert tangent here) .....

OP posts:
Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:55

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/02/2025 14:54

Ask her for the NHS guidelines on “how to assign sex at birth”

It's so annoying!!!!
I need to prepare weeks in advance for a conversation like this and have flashcards to hand 🙈

OP posts:
Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/02/2025 14:56

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:51

She has lots of trans friends

But is so considerate of others and a women's rights activist. And a scientist.

Which makes it even more unnerving to hear her saying "assigned X at birth" and "every embryo is female at conception"

Oh and she’s not considerate of others, she’s only considerate of the true believers

she couldn’t give a fuck about the many women who have bullied at work, hounded out of clubs & jobs, given up sports they loved or been forced to share prison cells or refuges with men

she’s not kind and she’s not considerate

MarieDeGournay · 03/02/2025 14:57

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:42

That's what I said.
They said no, any object/ body part is rape

See? This is what 'they' do! They are wrong, according to UK legislation.

In other countries, they'd be right - Iin some legislations, using an object is legally rape, so it could theoretically be done by a woman.
Women can also be charged with rape if they participate in an act of rape.
But that is a rare occurrance, it hardly puts a dent in the statement that 'rape is a male offence'.

But if they can talk louder than you, the fact that they are wrong is irrelevant.
Deep breath -
'Ohisitjustme - Destroyer of Daft Arguments But Too Busy To Bother'

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 14:59

In the UK women cannot rape - it requires a penis in UK legal definition, so whoever said women commit rape was (in the UK) wrong. Mind, transwomen commit rape, but they are not women.

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 15:02

In the case of men in women's changing rooms etc, even if a minority objected they would still be right. No-one can decide for me if I want men hanging around outside an M&S changing room - so there should be none.

HermioneWeasley · 03/02/2025 15:03

Ask them why we bother to segregate spaces, services and sports at all in that case? Are they suggesting that everything should just be mixed sex - showed, prisons, boxing, hospital wards, DV shelters etc? If not, why not by their logic.

and given that ministry of justice data shows that men commit 98% of sexual violence and that trans identified men commit sexual violence at least the same rate or higher than other males, why we should change the rules for that particular sub set of males.

if you concede the need for women only spaces/ services/sports, why is it better to divide those spaces by people’s subjective, changeable and unverifiable feelings about themselves than on the basis of sex? Who benefits? Who loses out?

BarbieBrightSide · 03/02/2025 15:03

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:51

She has lots of trans friends

But is so considerate of others and a women's rights activist. And a scientist.

Which makes it even more unnerving to hear her saying "assigned X at birth" and "every embryo is female at conception"

The 'every embryo is female' thing.

I remember the first time I read that years back and I thought 'ooh, that's interesting'. It was in something like Just Seventeen or similar (magazine aimed at teenage girls in the 1980's for those too young to remember it!)

I was thinking about it again recently and decided it might make more sense to people to think of early mammalian embryos as being in a neutral state until such time (can't remember how many weeks) that the SRY genetic info kicks in.

XY embryo (Egg (x) fertilised by y sperm) - SRY means that the embryo develops down the male pathway
XX embryo (Egg (x) fertilised by x sperm) - no SRY therefore embryo does not develop down the male pathway

I know that this is overly simplistic, but when everyone claims to be an expert, I find that simpler is better

XXylophonic · 03/02/2025 15:05

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 14:42

That's what I said.
They said no, any object/ body part is rape

They're wrong. That would be sexual assault.

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 15:06

Neither of which statements is correct - and she's a scientist?

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 15:08

HermioneWeasley · 03/02/2025 15:03

Ask them why we bother to segregate spaces, services and sports at all in that case? Are they suggesting that everything should just be mixed sex - showed, prisons, boxing, hospital wards, DV shelters etc? If not, why not by their logic.

and given that ministry of justice data shows that men commit 98% of sexual violence and that trans identified men commit sexual violence at least the same rate or higher than other males, why we should change the rules for that particular sub set of males.

if you concede the need for women only spaces/ services/sports, why is it better to divide those spaces by people’s subjective, changeable and unverifiable feelings about themselves than on the basis of sex? Who benefits? Who loses out?

She thinks that there should be mixed spaces full stop. Eg unisex toilet cubicles. Mixed changing rooms in the gym/pool but with cubicles

I said "trans women" commit offences at the same rate as men and she said "no that's not true, they're more at risk from violence actually". I said "that's not true" and she said "yes it is" . In a really soothing explanatory "you don't know what you're talking about" tone

Without having actual print outs to hand I was at nothing

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 03/02/2025 15:08

"Response: well there'll always be people who'll take advantage"

My answer would be, 'Why should we give those people even easier access to their victims'.

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 15:11

izimbra · 03/02/2025 14:24

Anyway, try not to worry.

Trump's government are erasing transgender people.

No mention of them will be allowed in any literature produced by the government or any agency attached to it.

Teachers who use a child's preferred pronouns or name (if that name isn't concomitant with their sex) will be sacked, blacklisted and possibly placed on a sex offender's register.

Transgender people will be erased from the military and probably sacked if they're in any role working in the public sector, because they won't have any protection from discrimination under the law.

Everyone has to say that sex is strictly binary.

Soon, if everyone stops talking about transgender people, stops posting about them on social media, we'll go back to how we were in the past. Where we knew transpeople existed somewhere but because nobody really talked about it, and because there are so few of them that most people who've got the rage about them have never actually encountered one outside of the social media space, we didn't expend vast amounts of energy on talking about how awful and dangerous they are.

We're due a far right take over in the UK at the next election. Just bide your time.

I hope we are not in for a far right takeover! Don't believe it, either. Or do you not know what happened to Mosely and his adherents in Cable Street?

ScarlettSunset · 03/02/2025 15:13

Toseland · 03/02/2025 14:49

No it's not just recently - I was sexually harrassed by men dressed-up as 'sexy' women four times as a child through the 1970s.

That's awful. I'm sorry you went through that.

Helleofabore · 03/02/2025 15:13

"Which makes it even more unnerving to hear her saying "assigned X at birth" and "every embryo is female at conception"

No, on this your friend is woefully misinformed and repeatedly misinformation. Embryos are not differentiated for the first weeks, but they are 'not' all female. If they are tested, they have the genetic coding of being male or female. The male embryos start to differentiate after those first weeks. But they were not 'female' embryos.

I will find the Fond of Beetles tweets for this and also a good graphic from Zach Elliott of the Paradox institute.

Here are tweets from Zach

https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1885102431450661174
https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1885110924438098044

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 15:15

Toseland · 03/02/2025 14:49

No it's not just recently - I was sexually harrassed by men dressed-up as 'sexy' women four times as a child through the 1970s.

That's recent - I remember transexuals in the 70s. There have always been men who cross-dressed but now they have been allowed into women's spaces as of right, which was not the case until very recently.

Grammarnut · 03/02/2025 15:21

BarbieBrightSide · 03/02/2025 15:03

The 'every embryo is female' thing.

I remember the first time I read that years back and I thought 'ooh, that's interesting'. It was in something like Just Seventeen or similar (magazine aimed at teenage girls in the 1980's for those too young to remember it!)

I was thinking about it again recently and decided it might make more sense to people to think of early mammalian embryos as being in a neutral state until such time (can't remember how many weeks) that the SRY genetic info kicks in.

XY embryo (Egg (x) fertilised by y sperm) - SRY means that the embryo develops down the male pathway
XX embryo (Egg (x) fertilised by x sperm) - no SRY therefore embryo does not develop down the male pathway

I know that this is overly simplistic, but when everyone claims to be an expert, I find that simpler is better

So we have males and not males? Not sure that's actually better. But sex is determine at conception. Fertilised by a Y sperm it will be male. Fertilised by an X sperm it will be female.
Not neutral but already determined.

Helleofabore · 03/02/2025 15:21

Here is a thread from Dr Emma Hilton on the embryo misinformation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1883541430788092054.html

On “we all start as females” (by request).

At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva.
This reproductive system begins to differentiate at around six weeks post-fertilisation, when the embryonic gonads - two balls of cells clumped in your pelvic area - turn into ovaries and not testes.
The ongoing development of internal and external genitalia follows this gonadal differentiation into ovaries.

This is what is meant by “organisation” - the coordinated, sequential development of multiple tissues that have evolved around a given reproductive function.
The trigger for these balls of cells to turn into ovaries and not testes is genetic. This is what is meant by sex being “determined” by genetics.

Given those genes were inherited at fertilisation, it is reasonable to say sex is determined at fertilisation.
This means you can look at that genetic information in a fertilised egg and understand what will happen in six weeks to those balls of cells, despite the balls of cells not yet existing.

In an IVF clinic, for example, you can sort embryos by this genetic information.
The genetic switch that turns the balls of cells into ovaries and not testes is the absence of a Y chromosome gene called SRY.

The female switch is often conceptualised in the OFF position. That is, unless you have the genes required to flip the switch to ON, you will differentiate ovaries and not testes.
Plenty of developing systems use ON/OFF switches to drive different tissue fates. Sometimes the ON position makes something happen, sometimes it stops something different happening.

ON is not inherently more interesting or important than OFF.
The OFF position is often labelled a “default” pathway.

That is, we ask: what will happen to these precursor cells or this precursor tissue if it doesn’t get positively switched to do something else instead? What do they turn into “by default”?
Because differentiating as male - making testes and not ovaries - requires a positive switch (the SRY gene), female differentiation has been framed as the “default” pathway.
This leads to the claim that because the differentiation of female reproductive anatomy is “default”, the embryo before differentiation of any reproductive anatomy is phenotypically female.

This makes no sense to me; it’s really random.
And while many who anchor sex as a karyotype/genotype argue that embryos are, in fact, female (or male) from fertilisation before any sex differentiation, not even this framework can translate into the idea that all embryos are female at fertilisation.
It is a bonkers claim, leaning heavily into misogynistic ideas that the absence of a penis and the presence of a precursor embryonic outlet tube - the cloaca, in both sexes - means female.

Because females are no-penis cavities, amirite?
In fact, what we know is that female development is not the result of “do nothing”. You need plenty of female-specific, positive signalling to make ovaries. They don’t just drift into existence for lack of anything better to do; they are busy little balls of cells.
The embryonic gonads - the first point of sex differentiation - are bipotential. They are “competent” to differentiate as either ovaries or testes.

Before differentiation, they are no more female than they are male.
Internal genitalia develops from two sets of ducts, one pair that can be fashioned into female bits and one pair that can be fashioned into male bits. All embryos contain both sets of ducts.

This set up is no more female than it is male.
External genitalia develops from a tissue field that is, like the gonads, bipotential.

And again, before differentiation, this tissue field is no more female than it is male.
The wording in Trump’s executive order is fine (well, I dislike “conception” but that’s a minor quibble).

Sex is determined at fertilisation. We can predict the sex class of an embryo well before any sex phenotype develops, and with almost-perfect reliability.

Human embryos do not all start as female. This is a scientifically-illiterate claim.

Thread by @FondOfBeetles on Thread Reader App

@FondOfBeetles: On “we all start as females” (by request). At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva. This reproductiv...…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1883541430788092054.html

Ohisitjustme · 03/02/2025 15:26

Helleofabore · 03/02/2025 15:21

Here is a thread from Dr Emma Hilton on the embryo misinformation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1883541430788092054.html

On “we all start as females” (by request).

At the level of anatomy, “female” describes a particular reproductive system - eggs in ovaries, oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina and vulva.
This reproductive system begins to differentiate at around six weeks post-fertilisation, when the embryonic gonads - two balls of cells clumped in your pelvic area - turn into ovaries and not testes.
The ongoing development of internal and external genitalia follows this gonadal differentiation into ovaries.

This is what is meant by “organisation” - the coordinated, sequential development of multiple tissues that have evolved around a given reproductive function.
The trigger for these balls of cells to turn into ovaries and not testes is genetic. This is what is meant by sex being “determined” by genetics.

Given those genes were inherited at fertilisation, it is reasonable to say sex is determined at fertilisation.
This means you can look at that genetic information in a fertilised egg and understand what will happen in six weeks to those balls of cells, despite the balls of cells not yet existing.

In an IVF clinic, for example, you can sort embryos by this genetic information.
The genetic switch that turns the balls of cells into ovaries and not testes is the absence of a Y chromosome gene called SRY.

The female switch is often conceptualised in the OFF position. That is, unless you have the genes required to flip the switch to ON, you will differentiate ovaries and not testes.
Plenty of developing systems use ON/OFF switches to drive different tissue fates. Sometimes the ON position makes something happen, sometimes it stops something different happening.

ON is not inherently more interesting or important than OFF.
The OFF position is often labelled a “default” pathway.

That is, we ask: what will happen to these precursor cells or this precursor tissue if it doesn’t get positively switched to do something else instead? What do they turn into “by default”?
Because differentiating as male - making testes and not ovaries - requires a positive switch (the SRY gene), female differentiation has been framed as the “default” pathway.
This leads to the claim that because the differentiation of female reproductive anatomy is “default”, the embryo before differentiation of any reproductive anatomy is phenotypically female.

This makes no sense to me; it’s really random.
And while many who anchor sex as a karyotype/genotype argue that embryos are, in fact, female (or male) from fertilisation before any sex differentiation, not even this framework can translate into the idea that all embryos are female at fertilisation.
It is a bonkers claim, leaning heavily into misogynistic ideas that the absence of a penis and the presence of a precursor embryonic outlet tube - the cloaca, in both sexes - means female.

Because females are no-penis cavities, amirite?
In fact, what we know is that female development is not the result of “do nothing”. You need plenty of female-specific, positive signalling to make ovaries. They don’t just drift into existence for lack of anything better to do; they are busy little balls of cells.
The embryonic gonads - the first point of sex differentiation - are bipotential. They are “competent” to differentiate as either ovaries or testes.

Before differentiation, they are no more female than they are male.
Internal genitalia develops from two sets of ducts, one pair that can be fashioned into female bits and one pair that can be fashioned into male bits. All embryos contain both sets of ducts.

This set up is no more female than it is male.
External genitalia develops from a tissue field that is, like the gonads, bipotential.

And again, before differentiation, this tissue field is no more female than it is male.
The wording in Trump’s executive order is fine (well, I dislike “conception” but that’s a minor quibble).

Sex is determined at fertilisation. We can predict the sex class of an embryo well before any sex phenotype develops, and with almost-perfect reliability.

Human embryos do not all start as female. This is a scientifically-illiterate claim.

That's a great explanation. Thanks 😊

OP posts: