Just one article to convince someone that it's not just about sport?

[Emilesgran]

Hi all,
I normally come here to learn rather than to post because there are so many brilliant women who just "get" everything that I feel I don't have much to contribute. Plus lack of time TBH.

Anyway, my DS who's in his late 20s and living abroad so we don't sit down regularly to talk, has been holding back on the whole trans thing. I've felt for ages that he didn't agree with me but was being "careful" not to say the wrong thing, and I didn't want to push it.

So now, at last, after the SC ruling, he finally said something on Whatsapp about "the strange SC judgment". I asked him "why strange", and he replied with quite a detailed post:
-
Well I'm not as engaged as you are. But the judgement is ham-fisted, reads like a biased SCOTUS opinion and lowers my opinion of UK Supreme Court. Extract:
"The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation."

That's just a dereliction of duty by the court, and will cause problems as it enforces gender stereotypes on the entire population.

And then he concluded: The sports issue is a minor aspect that needed correcting. That's sorted, but at the cost of cruelty to another section of the population who would never dream of picking up a tennis racquet competitively - nor assault children in bathrooms.
---
Italics are mine - to show his words, bolding is his.

I was going to reply, but I don't want to get this wrong. Nor end up with a to-and-fro that will just lead to him disengaging again. I feel like this is a chance to win him over - if I can get it right.

I also know he won't read lots of different articles about it - he's not concerned enough. But if someone has an idea of just one article - not one with lots of horrifying anecdotes about abusers, that's not his style, but rather something analytical that will explain why it's a woman's rights issue, rather than trans rights, or - well I don't know, something else - that'd be fantastic.

I can respond to some of his points, that it's not just about competitive sports for instance, because girls only get to a competitive level by coming up through the ranks of school and club sports, and that women need to play more sports generally anyway. But like I say, I'd really like a single authoritative article about why this is not about dislike for transgender but about erasing women. He already knows about JK Rowling, of course, so it needs to be in a bit more depth than that.

I'm sure if I took the time to search here, I'd find something, but apart from the fact that it's a daunting task, I'd really like some advice on how to go about it talking to him about it as well.

He also has a 13 year old cousin who's currently in the throes of thinking she might be trans or NB, so OTOH her obvious unhappiness and confusion might help my argument, but I don't want to sound like I'm rejecting her either. Because I'm not.

TIA

It's interesting that the sports issue seems to have gained most traction with TRA allies. My DD, whilst telling me what a bigot I am, did say that TW need to keep out of women's sport. There must be stuff on social media that is telling TRAs and allies that this must now be the approach.
I don't know how I feel about that because sport has been a fabulous wake-up call as it's so visible to so many, especially after the Olympics. But if the TRAs are going to make a show of accepting that single sex sport is OK, I'm worried that that will be used to pretend they're being compromising and thereby keep allies' sympathy.
Just have to hope that if the link can be made about males being bigger/stronger etc for sport, slowly that will make it clearer why women don't want bigger, stronger, more violent people with penises in women's spaces.

Sorry I didn't answer your question at all. I have no idea how to deal with it because I can't talk to my teen (ND) teen at all. She literally shouts, accuses, cries and storms off.
I wish I had an answer, because if there was just a way of making her listen, I think she would understand.
But each of us is a lone voice against thousands of lies on the Internet.

Hmm I don't have any one article but maybe prison statistics? They show that either a) transwomen have male pattern offending behaviours (although way more likely to be imprisoned for sexual crimes than men are) or b) male predators pretend to be transwomen. Either way is not a good look and wholly incompatible with allowing transwomen into womens spaces.

Tell him you're proud to have raised a son who has empathy for people who he believes are marginalised. Tell him you think he learned that from you. Does he now believe you suddenly lack empathy or possibly that being a woman yourself you have insight that, for the moment, he's missed.

If getting him to consider that, perhaps, his mum isn't suddenly a raging bigot doesn't work tell him to think about women who are faced with a male stranger in the changing rooms of their gym (over 90% of tw retain their male genitalia, GRC notwithstanding), about women who have been imprisoned with and even assaulted by tw, about tw police officers who had been given permission to intimately search any unconsenting women who may have been taken into custody, about religious women, traumatised women who may have to share intimate spaces with tw(men) or exclude themselves. Ask him if he had a daughter how he would feel about her having to share the changing rooms at school with a boy. Or does he think his female cousin should be encouraged to use the boys changing room or toilets. Or sleep in the boys dormitories on school trips. This that have all actually happened.

Tbh I could go on for pages, I've not even mentioned lesbians! He's a little way there, that's encouraging.

corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation."

That's just a dereliction of duty by the court, and will cause problems as it enforces gender stereotypes on the entire population.

He has misunderstood the meaning of the words 'biological characteristics'. That means penis vagina ovaries testicles. Those are nothing to do with stereotypes, those are biological facts. The judgement doesn't in any way suggest that women should like knitting and makeup, or men should like football and cars. That would be enforcing gender stereotypes.

This is the problem when you try to make words mean something other than their agreed meaning. They type of body you have isn't anything to do with stereotypes. One is biology, one is societal.

in a similar conversation with DH, I put the emphasis on the difference between sex and gender. sex is set at birth, written into every cell of the body and can't be changed. gender is variable and lots of people don't conform, including me.

the court ruling is only about sex, and sex matters only in contexts where the physical shape of the body matters (sport / changing rooms etc). In contexts where the mind matters (voting, shopping, speaking your mind, using shops and hotels, most of modern life), then men and women should be treated equally.

Did your DD says this recently about sports or has she always said it?

Like you I get the bigot stuff thrown at me because they can't argue it. I'm wearing them down though as I've spent years at it ! Plus them getting older helps.

The problem with finding one article or one argument that will help is that trans ideology is based on emotion not rational argument. And people are very unlikely to change their minds simply in the face of rational argument. Confirmation bias, the need to conform, social media...all strengthen that natural human response.
So I was wondering whether a more personal appeal to emotion rather than rationality might work. With my DD that would be something like 'I'm a bit upset that you think I'm a bigot and I don't want you to hate me on the basis of a misunderstanding. I don't want to change your mind about how you feel, but would you let me explain why I'm concerned about women's rights?' Then just give a very brief explanation about how and why our rights are sex-based not gender-based, ie centering the positive of women's rights rather than centering the shouting TRAs.

I like this article by Helen Lewis at The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/britain-rules-woman-supreme-court/682511/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

It's very moderate and conciliatory, and she emphasises the need for compassion and dialogue. At the same time, she lays out the history of this contentious issue over the past decade or so. Don't forget: some of the younger generation may simply not know what has been going on. If I only read The Guardian, or got all my news from social media, I probably wouldn't know either.

Good luck with all this. I haven't yet discussed it with any of my kids (age range 24 to 31). I'm dreading it.

@Cailin66
Post SC judgment! Which is why I'm concerned about it being a new TRA method.
She raised the trans thing a couple of years ago - at a point when she had some ND-related mental health struggles, of course. It was hook line and sinker then to the point of 'I don't see why sport matters. Who cares if women can't win. They should try harder'.
So we've moved forward. But the total nonsense she's been spouting post the SC judgment is a terrifying insight into the cynical lies and whataboutery being thrown at them. It's insidious.

"My DD, whilst telling me what a bigot I am, did say that TW need to keep out of women's sport. There must be stuff on social media that is telling TRAs and allies that this must now be the approach."

TWAM when it comes to sport, but TWAW for everything else is a very illogical place to be in. Such is the life of a TRA, I guess.

First of all a general thanks to everyone who's replied - lots of brilliant things to think about there already - I knew Mumsnet would come up trumps!
I'll have a look at the latest ones and then see where I'm at with all that.

He evidently does not know what a gender stereotype is, so ask him what he actually means rather than parroting what he’s seen repeated on Reddit.

“Women are a distinct biological class which have shared biological characteristics” isn’t a stereotype. “All women like pink and to go to bottomless brunch” is.

Biologically classification is one thing. Ascribing non-biological personality traits to an entire sexed group with no scientific basis is another. He's got them entirely the wrong way around.

I’m sick of see TRAs twist it. They are the ones saying that certain preferences make you a certain gender (“I knew my child was actually a little girl from such a young age because she loved glitter and wearing Elsa dresses and hated the boys clothes I dressed her in…”). GC people say “sex is real but we don’t care about how you dress or what you like because your sex doesn’t dictate your personality, and your personality doesn’t dictate your sex”. How are we the ones imposing gender stereotypes?!

What duty exactly does he think the court has failed to uphold? The court doesn’t have a duty to make a decision based on feelz.

I'm hesitating to reply to posts individually, because I just can't reply to them all, but as I did ask for an article, thanks for that, it looks good - and yes you make a REALLY good point about people who only read the Guardian, but I'd widen that out to include others like the Atlantic and the New York Times (all stuff he likes to read. And that's FROM the Atlantic, so that's excellent.

Mine are the same age as yours, and it's complicated: they're far more reasonable than as teens, but at the same time, you have to be careful not to fall out with them over this sort of "external" stuff. As a parent of adults, your opinion is no longer nearly as valuable as when they were teens, where I feel like they rail against you because they still value your views and can't bear them to be different from theirs.

As adults, that's no longer the case. You could easily be written off as "poor bigoted mum, whom we love but don't really listen to."

How on earth does it "enforce gender sterotypes" though?

The protections we're looking for are those where the physical reality of being female is important, like the right to attend antenatal appointments and not to be discriminated against if we're pregnant or breastfeeding. Ask him if it makes sense to give these protections on a "gender" basis (i.e. to transwomen) or on a biology basis (i.e. to include transmen)?

The judges made the point that women and transwomen are not the same physically, so it doesn't make sense to lump them together for anything where the sex of a person is important. If he's going to be spouting that transwomen "are" women then he's going to have to have a think about exactly what "being" a woman means, rather than "feeling" like you're a woman.

Yes. He hasn't said TWAW though, and presumably if he accepts that sports are different, he doesn't literally believe it. Rather he seems, as @IcakethereforeIam says, to be hyper-empathetic towards poor oppressed trans people.
But absolutely, the "stereotypes" thing is annoying. I didn't really expect that from him. I think that's important.

Ok, well if transwomen are men, then why would they be entitled to share women's spaces in toilets/prisons/changing rooms etc.etc. Why them and not any other men? Their "oppression" doesn't entitle them to opposite sex spaces any more than being gay/old/weak/disabled would. Letting in transwomen but not other men would be discriminating against men surely?

This. Prison statistics on men who wish they were women* and also prison statistics on the background and exposure to abuse of the women who end up in prison.

So look at the statistics of the type of woman who ends up in prison. And then look at the statistics of men who have been put into the female prisons. And think about what you are exposing these female prisoners to. And the staff.

*I am still debating whether to use "trans identifying men" or this longer version. Someone made the excellent point that "trans identifying men" puts the trans identity at the front and in focus. But I do need a shorter way of saying "men who wish they were women".... MWWTWW??!

I also picked up on the reference to "gender stereotypes".

Are you able to use socratic questioning with him that appear more about "clarification" rather than judgement? eg.

Interesting analysis - just to be clear I understand you, can you clarify what you mean by "gender stereotypes"?

Ok and now can I just understand what relationship "biological characteristics" (the words used in the judgement) have to gender stereotypes?

So if there's no connection between biology and gender stereotypes, how is the court imposing those gender stereotypes on people with this judgement...

etc etc

On the contrary, if you don't define women by the fact that they are biologically female, the only other option is to define them by conformity to gender stereotypes (subjective ideas about how a woman thinks, feels, looks, behaves) or to cop out with nonsensical circular reasoning. You could point this out and explain that you find any definition of woman that is not based on material reality to be regressive and sexist.

I imagine your son hasn't thought about it properly but if it was my son I'm not sure I'd bother trying to convince him if he was being respectful towards my views, which yours does seem to be. But my son is only 7 so that's an uninformed opinion as I don't have any experience of navigating relationships with adult children!

‘nor assault children in bathrooms.’
I have actually done research on this. I believe it’s the design that makes a difference as crimes are likely to happen in private.

You could always discuss the public toilet door gap conundrum. Because focusing on one characteristic and ignoring others means more designs are actually dangerous for all. But particularly anyone medically vulnerable (including those with invisible disabilities) and women and children (because of assaults).

Public mixed sex toilet designs don’t have door gaps so are best for men that are healthy (ie. Men not about to have a heart attack or stroke). Ironically medical emergencies are likely to happen in a toilet room because that’s where people rush to when they feel ill.

Thats why we need single sex toilets with door gaps. They are safer for everyone.

It should be about considering everyone. If he looks in the government consultation document for toilet design for people with long term health conditions he will understand, because they didn’t even mention most of the long term health conditions that cause collapse, and instead closed the gaps on designs because they linked to ‘evidence’ - opinion article from transactivists who preferred enclosed designs. The company that did the consultation were on the Stonewall scheme and won a gold award the next year.

Inclusivity isn’t inclusivity if it focuses on one group to the detriment of all others. There needs to be checks and balances.

Safety, for when any of us are at are most vulnerable, should come first.

Jessica Yaniv's Wikipedia is a start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv

So tricky. I would say something like 'what cruelty do you mean?' I would be very supportive of third spaces, but to give anyone the 'right' to be treated as the opposite sex would mean, for example, that women would be forced to change in front of men, or be strip searched by men. I think that would be cruel for the women.

Not an article as such but the damning independent review into the practices at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre after a damning Employment Tribunal is a perfect example of the kind of situation caused by organisations captured by gender ideology who ignored the law and why the SC judgement was so important -

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/ERCC-Review-Report-FINAL1-.pdf

Maybe say that you agree that for trans people this is not what they are used to and ask whether you could both try and help trans people by trying to campaign together for safe third spaces for all trans individuals.