just checking - since the SC there is no such thing as misgendering on Mumsnet? Or is there??

[loveyouradvice]

Just checking we can refer to TIM as he now? I think so... The deeply admirable Helen Joyce does and I share her rationale...

Goes all the way back to the sublime Pronouns are rohypnol from a much loved mums netter...

But how do people know that you are non-neuro-diverse? And how do they know what offends you?

It's actually better if you don't assume offence at every turn and infer thoughtlessness at worst, rather than maliciousness.

Our diversity training said it doesn't matter if you meant to be offensive it only matters if the other person was offended. I disagree. Intention is important.

I haven't checked if this was posted, but this may be worth rereading for those who have missed it.

A thought provoking article on pronouns and the 'respect' issue.
The hidden cost of pronoun politeness | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine

Women being the ones with bodies that can grow and birth humans is not a 'stereotype'. That is what it means to be female. Men cannot do that. The fact that you want to deny that fact makes me doubt the reality of your claimed inability to assess people's sex.

There are many women who would have a problem with the definition of "female" as having an ability to give birth.

It is pointless trying to argue that men and women are differently built by referencing research showing that on average men and women are built differently.

It's not the average we are talking about when referencing men who look feminine and women who look masculine, it's those at the outer edges of the bell curve, where there is considerable overlap.

This thread continues with women demeaning other women who do not look "feminine enough" according to their rules of what it is to be male or female.

Which is why that’s not the definition.
Female: Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
male: Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.

It’s not whether an individual has the ability, it’s whether they are one or the other of the two types.

Did you even read the research on recognising sex from faces? Even when faces are in that zone you are talking about, the majority of people can correctly tell their sex.

This research confirms other past research. So yes, EVEN those ‘feminine’ looking male people and ‘masculine’ looking female people.

And no, hip placement is not an ‘average’. Even if a male has q angles at the knees due to poor musculator or injury, those male people will not have the pelvis alignment that comes with having to have hip joints in the position of female people. Nor will the hip joints have the movement that female people’s hips have.

This is not ‘masculine’ looking female people. This trait is common for ALL female people.

“This thread continues with women demeaning other women who do not look "feminine enough" according to their rules of what it is to be male or female”

You are the only person on this thread who is talking about whether women look ‘feminine’ enough. The rest of us are coming from a base of science.

At this point, I think we can say you have reached denial of science in your ability to discuss these topics.

Really good read. It gets to the heart of the issue.

Not being able to give birth is not changing the fact that a female body is formed around that function though.

A female human body is one which has been formed around the function of producing large gametes, whether or not those large gametes have ever, are or will ever be produced.

That is the accepted and established definition in science for a female human. Your point about is whataboutery. Science cannot change the definition of female to be more inclusive of what it is just because some women never give birth to an infant. Because apart from the body formation there is no other commonality for all women that isn’t reductive. That is the reductive definitions, not stating the scientific definition.

Acknowledging the body formation isn’t reductive despite this weak arsed attempt how extreme trans activists have tried to position it for years. The reductive aspect is saying that because someone feels like a woman, they are a woman even though they are male.

I am now actually laughing at the determination here. Well done.

Did you know that even the lower quartile of male human strength still has more strength than the upper decile of female strength?

This cross over that you keep speaking about is truly marginal in many instances.

It is like male testosterone levels and female testosterone levels. Firstly, it depends on the body at that time. But if a female person is producing the lowest range of male levels of testosterone without that male having no functioning testes , that female person is likely gravely ill. The ranges for testosterone production don’t cross over. Female people with PCOS or another chronic condition still don’t produce the lowest level of the male range.

They’d be a bit silly though

That’s ok. Silly people exist. We just should listen to them with a degree of caution

Wise words indeed BBM!

I think even if you have fertility issues, the whole make up of a woman, neurologically, metabolically, hormonally, anatomically, is engineered to support another life.
Even if for whatever reason you can’t get pregnant, or you can’t get it to term, the rest of your system is tilted towards that end goal.
It’s why diets that work for men are rubbish for women, and women have higher fat percentages, because your body is evolved to always have to have something in the tank to keep a second person alive.

Yeah, I find this whole denial of biology thing so weird. Reality is we’re human brains in animal bodies

your animal body is real and important and will affect your life AND it doesn’t have to define you

our bodies are very much designed to eat meat but lots of people choose not to. Meat remains a nutritious food for us regardless of this choice and if you don’t eat it you have to eat alternatives

“It is pointless trying to argue that men and women are differently built by referencing research showing that on average men and women are built differently.”

This is a a gem of a statement.

Umm. No. Male and female bodies are not ‘on average’ built differently.

They are very much all categorised reliably into male or female sex categories, based on… wait for it… the reproductive function that they are formed around. Even if it takes medical testing to work that out, it is reliably done.

The degree to which you seem to believe misinformations or even just plain false information is rather startling.

This is such a weird position for a TRA to hold, when trans people are the very demonstration that men and women are indeed built very differently.

If they weren't, there wouldn't be any need for cross-sex hormones, surgeries, hair removal, and so on.

And then all those procedures would bring trans people closer to the overlap territory, where it would become ambiguous whether they are male or female - except it never does, and it's always blatantly obvious which sex they are as soon as you take a second look.

There is NO overlap. Male and female bodies are fundamentally different, and that's what makes life as a trans person what it is: life as someone who identifies out of one's sex, but is still physically stuck forever inside it, no matter how many procedures one goes through.

The argument that sex is a continuum or something like a constellation of data points doesn't particularly serve people with dysmorphia, or people who want to be treated socially as the opposite sex.

It's just like passing privilege, aka gatekeeping of trans identity via beauty contest.

Why do I say that? Because trans-by-biometrics and trans-by-aesthetics will, sadly, exclude the vast majority of males with gender identities.

Males really really would not benefit from biometry of their supposedly female biological attributes.

On Friday, I was standing counting the crowd for work. I decided to put how accurate I can judge which sec someone is to the test. I watched a person walk from behind. Clearly male by the hip alignment and wearing unisex type clothes. That person returned a little later and it was clear this person was a male person with either prosthetic or hormones grown breasts. Because their face had all the male markers from the brow bone to the jaw to the hair line.

It really is not the magic that some people want others to believe to gaslight them into not thinking that they can indeed correctly identify some people’s sex. I picked it from behind and it was confirmed when the person turned.

Yesterday I did a twist on this.

Walking down an escalator, as I approach someone standing on the right to pass them they very loudly burst their bubble gum bubble in a way I thought was a bit anti-social. (Yeah, I get this is pretty picky of me, but it was a loud pop in a crowded place and utterly unnecessary, attention seeking at best). Because of the pop I glanced to my right and saw the face of a somewhat androgynous man as I passed. I suspected they were trans because "androgynous man plus anti-social behaviour suggests maybe trans to me", so I waited near the bottom of the escalators and rummaged in my bag.

When they passed (me) I could see they were wearing a really odd androgynous skirt and had moobs. I know it proves nothing and the anti-social behaviour was as trivial as anti-social behaviour gets, but honestly "a bit androgynous plus a bit anti-social" had my TW alert go off.

For anyone interested, Amy E Sousa has done some videos on the recognition of sex category in humans.

https://www.theknownheretic.com/p/instinct-sos-sex-recognition

Amy Sousa is a Depth Psychology specialist. Meaning she has studied and she teaches about human instinctive behaviour.

I recommend any person who doesn’t believe that humans are likely to correctly identify the sex of other humans particularly female people recognising male people, might like to watch this.

Do you think it is a case of getting attention, Jamie?

Me posting or their loud bubble-gum pop?

I presume you mean the latter!!!!! Not sure, but the guy was late twenties or early 30s... not sure that loudly popping gum as a fully grown adult in a busy place is entirely normal.

I get the impression most TIFs are happy to blend into the background (and I also suspect that it's a common reason for their transition)... in contrast the men seem to want a reaction, and you can't get that without first getting attention.

Ha ha. Yes the guy.

I mean, why go to all that trouble to defy stereotypes if no one notices.