A little piece of insight

[Tandora]

Into a topic so woefully misunderstood.

Yes, it's funny how we can't possibly understand the trans experience because we haven't been through it, but Tand can, isn't it?

And before Tand claims it's because we haven't listened to trans people, I have repeatedly and over several years, which is why I arrived at my current position.

An illuminating thread!

We have Tan's definition of 'trans' - it's when men are sad that people know they're men.

We have postmodernist nonsense, wherein 'biological woman' includes biological men.

We have 'homophobia in other countries means men should have access to what would otherwise (but for their presence) be woman's single sex spaces'.

Sadly we have no answer to Tatzoy's very reasonable question.

The worrying thing is that extreme transactivism (see opening post) uses children as tools to enforce men into women’s spaces, sports etc and to undermine safeguarding children.

Children are intellectually and emotionally unable to navigate the complex range of beliefs, delusions and sexual fetishes involved in gender identity. There’s a reason certain adults focus relentlessly in children in all this, using them as a shield to persuade unaware adults that GI is harmless in society.

Mumsnet warns that posters may not be who they say they are on the internet. We can only judge them on the basis of what they say. Those so caught up in the thrill of challenging women on here, to the extent that they dismiss the massive harm transgenderism is doing to children and young people, demonstrate precisely who they are and what their priorities and interests are.

It’s good to see the robust rebuttal of these dangerous and wicked attitudes to children.

TRA arguments seek to remove every available means of describing the differences between men and women.

That's not true at all.

Perhaps Dr Upton should have been asked what language he would have preferred Naomi Cunningham to have used to refer to those differences. What do you think he would have said?

For example, If Dr Upton was asked if she were born with a penis, I'm sure she would have agreed. There are any number of things that Dr Upton could have been asked that she would have agreed with which would enable description of physical differences between trans women's and cis women's bodies.

I love the fact that this thread is so active and there are so many new posters here who are saying 'no, female people need single sex provisions that exclude male people.'

No one appointed me spokesperson. lol.
It's simply a subject that I have studied scientifically in great depth, and therefore know a vast amount about. I am trying to share that knowledge and understanding as it is a topic that is so woefully misrepresented and misunderstood.

There are a lot of people speaking on this topic at the moment, with a lot of very strong opinions, who know not the darndest thing about which they speak and have precisely zero insight into what being trans is. I have a responsibility to challenge that.

Or, to simplify things, he could have just admitted that he's a biological male. If sex and gender are different, then what's the problem with that?

Yes.

Or, to simplify things,

The problem is that doesn't simplify things. It actually confuses things. I understand you disagree - That's the dispute. It's a dispute about how we use language to describe bodily differences, not about the existence of bodily differences.

Yeah. The biological difference is DU is male. Not any kind of female. So he can pop off with claiming he’s female. If he was female he wouldn’t be a transwoman. He knows fine well he’s male. So should not he in any female spaces. Why are you so desperate to get women to allow men in female spaces? Women are saying no. You and they just need to get over it. Women say no. The law says no. Deal with it.

You’re mistaking zero interest in what “trans” is because it’s largely irrelevant to why we want women only spaces to stay man free, for “zero insight” into this issue. We have plenty of insight into why men don’t respect women’s boundaries, thanks.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round alllll day long (again.)

Tan you need to address the core issue here, which is that all this special pleading and requirement for understanding and enablement boils down to your belief that these men matter, and women are walking resources not entitled to equality of consideration, access or anything else, and owe submission to them.

Why this sexism?

And why are you bothering to try and argue women into submission and enablement when they're a) clearly saying no and b) the law protects women from sexism exactly like this which would remove their equality and access to benefit men?

Where's this going?

I'm fine with people believing whatever the hell they want. I don't care. I'm not interested in what goes on in the head of random strangers, and I don't predicate my life obediently around whatever a man tells me is happening inside his. Your answers for such men will have to be found by setting up resources rather than mugging women for them.

So we've moved from 'they're very very sad' to 'but it's all just language / nebulous'. Without ever explaining why these or any of the points in between mean that males should have female rights. Or why male wishes should take precedence over female needs. Or why trans-identified males' rights, and extra gender reassignment rights, aren't enough for them, and why they can't deal with their sadness by arguing for 3rd spaces.
Because whether or not people accept that 'gender' is a thing; or whether, if it is, it's about feelings or cognition; or whether there's a biological basis for trans; or whether trans people have always existed; or whether trans people are or are not ill, or sad, or vulnerable, or whatever, remains utterly irrelevant to the point that males dont need female rights. If they dont want to be with other males or compete with other males, off they can go and set up their own, trans spaces/competitions etc.

The mountain walk is bracing and generally only goes one way.

How does acknowledging biological clarity confuse things? It couldn't be simpler. Language has to have a common and well-understood meaning for society to function. I thought a scientist like yourself would understand that.

It's calling a man a woman that muddies the water. Of course, that's why you're all for it.

If Dr Upton was asked if she(sic) were born with a penis,

Are you seriously suggesting that women now have to describe themselves as 'born without a penis' in order to distinguish ourselves from men!?

There are scientists and there are scientists, I guess. Many gender studies devotees would identify as social scientists.

When you use phrases like “trans women’s bodies and cis women’s bodies” you are begging the question. You have erased the sex class of women, and replaced the physical differences between men and women with an imaginary in-the-head difference between “trans” and “cis”.

You are also reducing men to “penis havers”. Do we need to discuss why that’s not appropriate or correct? Dr Upton is not a penis-haver, he’s a man.

Great post. No is a complete sentence.

I'm hoping for clarification of how we're even supposed to know how "sad" someone is when language is such formless undefinable wordificacious complimacatification.

That's what brain research charities are for. Start one for 'trans brain' research

I am Professor Robert Winston on Tuesdays when he's out, and the Queen of Thebes on weekends. It's the internet; anyone can claim anything to support their argument.

Imagine telling women who are discussing there needs to have single sex provisions remain single sex being told they "know not the darndest thing about which they speak".

I wonder if the disconnect ever sinks in... doubt it. It has not so far.

Talking therapy is infinitely more likely to resolve a mental health issue than a vaginoplasty is to create a vagina.

Me too. The point seems to be that it is a strong TRA argument to contend that trans has or may have a 'biological' basis (whatever relevance that has to the issue of sex-based rights - none in my view); but the term ''biological' woman" is nebulous.
So I suppose we go back to words meaning whatever we want them to mean. Which is funny in the context of Alice in Wonderland. But not so funny in the context of 1984.