Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

[Igneococcus]

I hope this sharetoken works, my laptop has died a lonely death while I was away and I'm doing this from the phone.
Sarah Ditum review if Guilty Feminist book:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/325fffb2-2c93-4dc8-908f-8b9bf22f331a?shareToken

It’s extraordinarily dishonest and I can’t take anyone seriously who does it.

And we know that that will ignore the violent and intimidatory protests that they organise.

How come those who keep telling us that these male people are needing women's spaces to protect them from harm never seem to be able to acknowledge that the very people who organise mass protests to stop women meeting, talking or watching debates or documentaries with violence, high levels of aggression and authoritarianism are the ones who also demand that they should access female single sex spaces?

And all the videos, memes and social media posts telling us that it doesn't matter what we want, they are going to do it anyway?

There is this significant disconnect that those censuring us and telling us we need to include these male people like to ignore. The very people who are violent and abusive in real life and on line are the ones demanding access to female single sex spaces.

Truly, organising protests in woman's toilets is showing the world just how aggressive these male people are. I would love to understand how those doing it are vulnerable?

It would help me to understand your point of view if you could describe transgender identities. I think you are saying that a male with an identity of ‘woman’ has a transgender identity? So what characterises an identity of ‘woman’ ?

I use physical characteristics to determine if I think someone is a woman and have described some of the things I look out for upthread. Can you describe what you look for?

@Onetimeonlyftw

i don’t really believe in gender identity.

I do believe that some people wish to identify as the opposite sex. I don’t think that negates biology though and to be honest I don’t think many people actually believe that people can change sex or that sex doesn’t ever matter. It’s a shame that the idea that biological sex is irrelevant and gender is everything has been such a big focus of the trans lobby really. It’s pretty awful that trans people have been told that the end game is that they should be able to and are entitled to pass for all purposes as the opposite sex, that even if they don’t pass, people will always indulge them by pretending that they do pass and that sex is irrelevant (by legal coercion if needed) and that being identified as your birth sex is necessarily awful and humiliating. What a high bar they have set for a trans person to have a valuable life, rather than being valuable as a trans person!

In many cases - sports, healthcare, prisons, schools - there will be a decision maker who should know the sex of the people to whom duties are owed and safeguarding principles will apply. Biology is highly relevant. If you don’t think safeguarding should apply to natal women, why not? A woman was raped by a man identifying as a woman on a NHS ward a couple of years ago (and the NHS denied it because they said there was no man on the ward) - how many women need to be raped by transwomen for there to be an issue? Can you point to a case where a transwoman was raped on a mixed ward or in a private room to prove there is a threat to transwomen from not having access to female wards?

I would be happy with the idea of a “social woman” outside female single sex spaces, if it is also possible to have female only spaces where it is desired. So, if “social women’s walking group” meant women and transwomen, but “female walking group” meant just females, that would be fine by me. People would have a fair description and could make their own choices accordingly. The bit I object to is the pretence that trans women are women for all purposes and the denial of language to female women to describe and delineate their own spaces - if language is expanded and is used appropriately to flag appropriate provision, that is fine by me.

My point is that she doesn’t have those figures because they don’t exist, so she pulled that “statistic” out of nowhere.

Of course!

It feels like we are going back to when the discussion first started on mn. Then, no one talked of changing sex much on here, more about gender, social roles, the idea that men with gender werent like other men. That they knew they weren't women, but just needed a bit of consideration. Men with gender came on here to befriend us and say they are not a threat, and can be trusted not to overstep the mark.

Some women warned that that wasnt how it was going to end.

Then we had men demanding that men with gender are literally women, children were told that they could change sex. We were told men could grow cervixes and its not right to say only women have them. Women have been attack for wanting single sex spaces.

Now its fallen apart, and we are back to threads on mn talking about gender and social roles. And men with gender dont pose a threat...

Let's also not forget that we are expected to allow these male people to be 'social women' for specific purposes and then they are expected to just accept that they are not 'women' when society has agreed that they are no longer women. (ie. that they are not woman for some aspects of life)

If any person who believes that this approach is kind and respectful to anyone, then I think they have very different meanings of kind and respectful.

From a female point of view, this approach limits female people to only being worthy of single sex protections when it is likely that their biological differences are most important (finally important?). Which apparently we are told is what feminists in the past were fighting for, to resist that having a uterus should define a woman’s value or destiny.

The disconnect behind this is like a beacon to me.

So on one hand, feminists were supposedly campaigning so that our female biology didn't define our value, yet .. the only time we can have single sex spaces be truly single sex is when our biology is likely to be the most defining feature. ie. through our trauma experienced due to our biology. I mean, if a poster was to add sports into the times we are allowed to have single sex provision, that is defined by our biological differences too.

It is the disconnect of the concepts behind these positions that defy logic.

And of course, feminists didn't just want society to ignore female people's biology. This is some warped thinking about what feminist's version of equality looked like. Feminists worked for equality of opportunity - equitable solutions that allowed us to have equal opportunity despite our biological differences. When they said, we want equal rights they were not saying 'we are just like men and should be treated just like men'.

Then one the other hand, you have just told a group of male people that they are no longer men, and that they are also not 'women' when they want to be. Only that they can be women when society says so. So part of the time. If people cannot see the inherent issues with that, then I doubt that they do understand kindness and what is best for vulnerable male people.

And remember identity is only based on someone's philosophical belief about themself.

That doesn't then cover all the 130+ other genders that constantly get ignored. And it doesn't then discuss what happens with the people with gender fluid beliefs.

And it doesn't then give clarity on how the growing number of detransitioners are to fit into this 'social' grouping. All of a sudden, those male people who were no longer 'men', were not 'women' except for some things, what are they now? Where do they fit into this social grouping? Or is it that those who are 'no longer men' suddenly become men again? How does that happen?

There is no logical foundation to this concept that some male people can be 'social' women.

And the weak arsed argument used by Frances-White using 'mother' as an analogy was flawed from the very outset because 'mother' traditionally was both a role and a term for a woman who had given birth. The flaws are so fucking huge she could fly an A380 back to Australia through the gaping flaws.

So much harm has been done and is still being done in the name of 'inclusion' and 'kindness' and 'respect' and the repetition of mantra like thinking.

it’s just, do people really not believe that transgender identity exists?

I don’t believe in gender identity myself, but I do obviously believe there are other people who believe it exists, and that it is very real to them.

Similar to how I don’t believe in Allah personally, but obviously I believe there are plenty of people who do.

I don't know if I grasp what you mean by 'gender identity' tbh. @Onetimeonlyftw

It's a theory about psychology. So yes it exists. Like any theory exists. Gender identity is said to be a feeling about our sex, yes? Or do you have another definition?

I can believe that people aren't happy and blame their body. Lots of people think their life would change significantly if they lose weight, or are taller. So i can see that could be the case for their sex, too.

And i can see that young people are drawn to dressing for their subculture. So the non binary kids adopt a look just as the emo kids did.

And i appreciate that men have fetishes and they use any opportunity to move them out of the bedroom and perform them in public.

Do i think all of these things are the same and are 'gender identities' and should be treated with drugs, surgery and law changes, no.

Yes I believe people who identify as transgender exist.
So what?
It doesn't mean they are women. It means they are transgender. They might be male or female.

You seem to have shifted from your
Women is just a social category argument, presumably because you couldn't answer the questions asking you to define that category

To:

Ok they are men but vulnerable men so shouldn't we let them in?

No we shouldn't because they are men and the same potential risk to women as all men. In fact slightly higher if you look at offending rates of trans women in prison.

Why did you presume this group of men were less of a risk? This giving special status and access to a subgroup of men is a safeguarding disaster. Think about priests or celebrities.

Also when you argue they are vulnerable so should be let in to women's spaces do you just mean toilets or also prisons, and sports etc?

Poor boy the other boys are mean to him make the girls look after him and give him their stuff.
No.

Also you can't just identity as a mother, you do have to actually either give birth or raise a child.

If at work you announced you were a mother but had no children, you'd just always felt like a mother you'd be viewed very suspiciously.

And if you asked for maternity leave without the arrival of a new child to care for, because you felt like your puppy was your baby you'd be told no.

Words have meaning even socially constructed ones.

You can't just change them and ask everyone to play along with your new personal definitions.

Plus of course, if we let vulnerable male people into female single sex spaces, what do these posters think will happen to the vulnerable women in the female single sex spaces?

This prioritisation of the vulnerable male people then causes harm to the vulnerable female people.

It is like those posters using the vulnerable male argument have simply ignored the needs of the vulnerable female people. Or don’t believe that they have needs for single sex spaces.

I also wonder just what the fuck the transwidows who have been abused are supposed to do. I know there are instances where the couple had been working at the same large organisation and the ex-wife ended up leaving because her abuser was allowed to use the female toilets.

Apparently, no one who repeats the mantra about being kind or respectful thinks anything of the female people who need single sex spaces to remain single sex. Not just the ones some wonderfully kind people think should be single sex based on their own life experiences.

If people think Deborah Frances White is a thought leader on this, then I think they didn’t watch the same interview. Or maybe they just don’t have the knowledge to see the massive cracks in the foundations of her premises.

Question I'm genuinely trying to think through:
Is there anything where simply identifying as the thing makes it true or generally accepted as true?

Don't we have boundaries of definition for all categories?

You can't self identify:
Your age
Race
Being Tall
Beautiful
Funny
Thin
Fat
A nurse
Policeman
Mother
Child
Dog
Donkey
Robot

I guess you can self identify as a religion eg Christian but people are free to say they don't think you are a Christian when you say you don't believe in Jesus.

Is there anything where the sole definition is based on personal identification?

I guess you can say you identify as loads of things but people are free to point out they do not view you as that.

The difference here is they tried to force us play along and tried to take the legal rights of a category to which they didn't belong.

Her examples and analogies that I heard (didn’t listen past the first 35 mins) were flawed.

The fact she is woefully misinformed about the Australian Aborigines and how their own techniques changed the forests of Australia over time to be the fire loving selection there is now shows she doesn’t do any depth of research into what she then leverages for credibility. Yet people obviously listened and just nodded along.

I think an individual gets to say how they feel or describe their personality, but there is no other situation where you can identify as something that is actually someone else’s reality, and means identifying out of a a category you are actually unchangeably in, AND have that taken seriously and be given a different group’s rights and be put in their category even when that’s clearly dangerous and unfair.

I know there are people who identify as a different ethnicity, age eg a baby, or as disabled. And self-ID is now going on quite a lot with autism and ADHD in some circles. But AFAIK you can’t use your self-ID to get access to a nursery or sports category, get benefits, prizes or medicine on the basis of self ID.

The exception to this might be in arts contexts where people do self-ID as disabled, ND etc and there are awards and grants for under-represented groups that will basically ask if you identify as disabled or neurodiverse. I don’t think they check and there are quite a lot of grifters in this field IME but generally it’s just as beneficial and box-ticking to identify as NB (sorry old cynic here).

NB is an interesting one as you’re not identifying into someone else’s protected category, but it’s also logically nonsensical as no one is non-binary in sex, but almost everyone is non-binary in gender expression so “gender non-binary” actually means just like most people. (I’m considerably more “gender non-binary” than plenty of self-declared NB people I’ve met…)

You don't get to self describe your personality.
You can hold beliefs about your personality that bare no relation to how others experience you.

You can self describe as funny, kind, compassionate or brave but other people may not see you this way at all and don't have to pretend they think you are funny or kind.

The key thing is you cannot force others to perceive you how you want to be perceived.

We've come to incorrectly view identity as a internal feeling when really it is socially constructed and agreed within relationship to others.
Eg I feel funny and you laughing at my jokes. Therfore we agree I am funny.

She wouldnt have used the clown analogy if she understood the real difference of opinion. Because it simply doesnt add clarity.

There's the opinion that people really do have a gender identity different to their sex, and need it fixing so their outward appearance matches their identity. And as a civilised society we should support this.

There are more libertarian and liberal views, that people are free to do what they want with their bodies, the state should support that, and individuals must tolerate it up to the point it harms them. So that point is in question and could be men in womens spaces or not depending on the percieved harm.

Then theres the view that gender identity is hiding a lot of individual and society ills and power dynamics and needs reining in.

The clown on a bus is just gender unconformity or outlandish fashion isnt it? But thats not the issue for most who are opposed to DFW view in the UK. Some may take the piss, but everyone has seen enough fashion trends and GNC to be unfazed.

She's imagining a country that has had youth trends and fashion for decades, as being against youth trends and fashion. Its not, its that people dont get the leap from GNC to actually changing sex.

And no society has. Different societies have had different ways of dealing with GNC, gay people and to a far lesser extend DSD, but none have actual believe in a sex soul by just self id alone.

I agree others don't have to affirm what you say. But when it comes to self-declaration, you can say I'm an introvert, or I love music, or I'm a bit scatty. Others might disagree but my point is identifying things like this about yourself doesn't take away from or appropriate anyone else.

There's also a difference between "identifying" as something in good faith with evidence (eg your religion or sexuality), and identifying as something you know you're not (eg saying a lesbian when you're a man on the basis of an ideology).

Years ago I read a book about national identity by an academic and the gist of it was that it was a v complicated thing to define but self-identity was important. However he was talking about for example Scots or Kurds and how they feel about their national identity. Not people "identifying" as whatever they fancy with no basis in evidence IYSWIM.

A small boy of my acquaintance identifies as T Rex (the dinosaur, not the glam rock band) but only on weekends. He's not silly enough to try that on at school.

With most characteristics, you'll be called out pretty quickly if you identify as something that's blatantly not true. If I identified as taller or thinner or younger I don't think anyone would take me at all seriously.

Things like religion or in some circumstances ethnicity are a bit fuzzier, but still have boundaries.

I can't think of any other identity claim where everyone is supposed to take a person at exactly their own estimation.

'A small boy of my acquaintance identifies as T Rex (the dinosaur, not the glam rock band) but only on weekends'

That's just adorable 😁❤️

Do posters remember this interchange between Emile Ratenbrand and Fae?

Again it begs the question, why was one permitted and not the other?

Why has a group of people decided that people can move between sex categories because they present as the opposite sex? And why are identification documents allowed to change?

The premise that sex is complicated in a way that leverages people to change sex is based on nothing but falsity and philosophical theory. But again… this one belief has been granted special status.

Sall Grover has offered to have a “scary conversation” with Deborah.

https://nitter.poast.org/salltweets/status/1918791505143337032#m