How did we get here?

[StormyPotatoes]

I like to hope with the Supreme Court ruling and public opinion changing rapidly we are finally moving into a new period where women’s rights and concerns matter, and biology prevails. But I don’t really understand how we got here to begin with and I really hope some knowledgeable posters can provide some background on this.

I am mid-to-late 30s. Femboi-emo kids were cute when I was a teen. I had a very huge crush on Brian Molko. Most of my male friends (and my now husband) wore eyeliner. Nobody in my year came out as gay whilst at school as the taboo still existed, but interestingly 3 girls in my mixed sex class of 30 came out as lesbians away from school (yes, they are all actual women - not men).

My exposure whilst a teenage to transsexuals was Hayley Cropper, the sympathetic and kind transwoman-played by an actual woman in Coronation Street; and Nadia, the winner of season 5 big brother, who I had forgotten all about in all honesty and was only reminded about due to current BB. It’s now occurred to me that the gender recognition act passed in the same year Nadia won BB.

At that time trans was unusual - I remember cross dressing being a thing and named, as we know, as transvestism. And I also remember, back then, so many of the historic and well documented serial killers had proclivities in cross dressing, which seems to now be downplayed.

So what happened between then and now? Why did very, very few men manage to influence the change in the Equality Act? Where did this sharp increase of trans people suddenly come from (we know it can’t be the GRA because most didn’t apply for it)?

And I think more importantly - why did both governments and media suddenly become so afraid to call a man a man? And worse, seek to punish a woman who dares to call a man a man. The GRA is one thing, but so many of the men who have been actively labelled as women by both politicians and journalists don’t hold a GRA. Where is the political and journalistic integrity they are supposed to uphold?

What happened? Not so much the boom in trans people but why they became a law of their own?

"Why would any one be treating a man as a ‘woman’ though in any situation where sex didn’t matter?"

Just wow. You really believe (or need to believe) when women socialise with one another they don't have any other common interests other than their biological distinctions? Whilst you might not be willing to accept women have distinctive behaviours their employment, consumerist, special interest, sartorial, life choices self evidently prove they exist in measurable terms.

"And how the fuck does a man know if he is being treated as if he is a woman or just a man within the very wide category of ‘man’? Or in which situation is he being treated like woman or a man and by which people?"

'Treatment' is to consider or regard in a specified way, and dealt with accordingly.

Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Umm, no comprehension fail from me. I think that would be a comprehension fail from you.

We have been through this. No structural traits are changed with extreme body modification that change reproduction capabilities. And all of definition 1 is about reproduction capability. No matter how desperate you are to twist the dictionary to fit your purpose in deconstructing definitions of sex.

No hormonal change or surgery changes the body to produce ova or sperm when it cannot.

The behavioural distinctions a male person has when they say they are female are also irrelevant to reproduction. This is just you desperately attempting to make a convincing argument.

Telling me that I have had a comprehension fail is looking like you are reverting back to abusive tactics.

No one is taking your words out of context mate. If your words have not been written with the purpose to intimidate women into complying because you have set out the consequences of our non-compliance, everytime people pointed out how your words you would have quickly cleared that up. Instead you doubled down and confirmed you meant exactly what you wrote.

Meanwhile there is no extra context needed to understand :

"Perhaps you don't feel the need to make you self more attractive…or can't?"

And it doesn’t matter how many time you repeat your theory. It doesn’t work for the purpose of categorising humans for accessing single sex provisions.

You can keep doubling down that behaviour is a categorising tool for sex, but it is not. It can be a categorising tool within sex classes if someone wished to do that but there is no coherency for personality traits being used as a permanent category tool for those sex classes.

And no single sex provision has been set up for the Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, Fashion and beauty loving, and Communicative female.

Female single sex provision is for female people- those born with a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether that body has, is or will produce those gametes. There is no need to categorise further at all. And if sex doesn’t matter, there’s no need to exclude anyone.

If you want to have a single sex space for a group of people who are Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, Fashion and beauty loving, and Communicative, fill your boots.

Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Surprised you missed out the girly pillow fights.

But women's sports and toilets exist for different reasons from purely social situations.

We don't have women's toilets for the purpose of "girly chats", they're for women to attend to bodily functions without any males present. No matter how girly those males think they are.

Women's sports are for women. Not mediocre men or those who have attempted to artificially weaken themselves because they think that women are just small, weak men.

Look, it doesn't matter how much oestrogen you put into your system, it doesn't matter if you get castrated and have implants to enhance your moobs, none of this turns a man into a woman.

People can't change sex. Get over it.

“So its upto an individual's subjective personal values how they identify.”

This is something the transmaxxers have already told us.

And thanks again for highlighting the flaws in the behaviourial categorisation model. So, tell us again…. is that behaviour how the individual identifies themselves as having, or as some others identify them as having, or does it have to be as the majority of people identifies them as having ?

Is it aspirational, so someone can identify themselves as being nurturing when they are not, but they want to be?

Can you also explain at what point of life is this behavioural categorisation made? Does it change throughout the day? Does it change depending on the mood? Does it change as experiences change the person?

Again, thanks for highlighting it is purely subjective. Making it irrelevant for the purpose.

Hardly even a mediocre concept for categorising human sex classes for the purpose of accessing single sex provisions.

You just love those stereotypes, don't you?

Nurturing: Taking care of others' well-being, showing compassion, and being supportive.

Not my strength. Am I a man now?

Cooperation: Working collaboratively with others to achieve a common goal.

Team work is something only women do? Better tell the army to kick out all those useless men and only let women join.

Empathy and sensitivity: Being in tune with the emotions of others and understanding their feelings.

Definitely not something shown by people like Dr Upton and 'Rose' or any other so-called 'transwomen' I can think of. But at least your stereotyping here correctly categorises them as male.

Fashion and beauty: Wearing certain styles of clothing, makeup, or jewellery.

😂😂😂

Communication: Being expressive, verbal, and communicative.

You might be right on this one. Maybe you should admit you're out of your depth here.

Going back to the OP, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Transsexuals as they were called back then faced a lot of discrimination such as being sacked from jobs. People sympathised.

The Gender Recognition Act allowed someone to apply for a job using state ID that stated their acquired gender. Again makes sense.

It made sense for gender reassignment to be a protected characteristic, along with others in the Equality Act 2010.

The limits to these acquired gender rights weren't adequately discussed or specified.

The sheer ridiculousness of the list is testimony to just how useless this theoretical model is for categorising sex. My husband wears more jewellery than me. I think the list must come from an old Cosmopolitan magazine or something.

Do you think OldCrone that if this was part of the getting and maintaining recognition of womanhood, it would stop all the abuse, violence and intimidation from those male people who say they are women? That all that would suddenly disappear if they could be reported to the sex category authority under the threat they would be kicked out of the category?

Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Having said that am now laughing at this post. I don't go to any of these things, am I now non-binary? 😅

You are really having a laugh now, aren’t you? You cannot be serious.

“You really believe (or need to believe) when women socialise with one another they don't have any other common interests other than their biological distinctions? Whilst you might not be willing to accept women have distinctive behaviours their employment, consumerist, special interest, sartorial, life choices self evidently prove they exist in measurable terms.”

The commonalities I share with other female people is the experience of interacting with society with a body that is female. Unless I am joining a group for one specific purpose, I don’t expect to have those ‘common’ interests that you keep mentioning on thread after thread.

In fact, the lack of sharing those common interests is what makes discussion with other female people interesting.

”Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.”

Fuck! That is funny.

Somehow, though, ‘social situations’ then morphed into female sports and female single sex toilets.

No. Male people who score themselves highly on some personality trait questionnaire don’t get to access female single sex provisions. And that is any provision that has been deemed as proportionate to exclude male people.

If women want to include male people in a friendship group that they themselves organise, go for it. Wedging friendship group activities in with single sex provisions is dishonest.

I’m wondering what nurturing, cooperative, empathic, fashion loving and communicative males make of the idea that these traits mean that they aren’t male after all.

With the exception of ‘fashion and beauty’, all of my friends, both male and female, exhibit these traits most of the time - we all have off days. My children, both male and female, have been raised to exhibit these behaviours and both value them. There are some stereotypical differences between them in terms of cognitive strengths (boy - maths and science, girl - history and English). Whilst their degree course cohorts are populated predominantly with around a 60/40 split in the sexes in line with stereotypes, it is plain to see that both males and females are interested and good at both subjects.

My friends are a mixed bunch when it comes to beauty and fashion. What is notable is that my children and their friends are into ethical fashion. They buy their clothes from Vinted and spend a lot of their time perusing fashion online. They all take care of their skin and go to the gym…..both sexes.

It is such a regressive notion that any of the above says anything about sex. The good news is none of them would be offended if their sex was questioned because of their preferences and behaviours - it’s too ridiculous to generate that kind of reaction.

Seriously, ‘mothers dinners’????

Why would a male person wish to join a dinner that has been created so that mother’s can share their experiences and get support for their needs in dealing with motherhood?

Why would a male person want to be in a place where mother’s talked about their cracked and bleeding nipples, and whether they should be weaning yet? 🚩🚩🚩

Did you even read the full definition? (b) does not refer to reproduction only (a) does. And (b) gives an example that specifies that doctors can alter characteristics:

b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.—Dinitia Smith

"Telling me that I have had a comprehension fail is looking like you are reverting back to abusive tactics."

Um telling someone they have misunderstood something & showing them where they misunderstood it is abuse now? Looks like a lot of teachers are in 'trouble'….

The rule of cause & effect is intimidation now?

Except when you do it?

And it doesn’t matter how many time you repeat your theory. It doesn’t work for the purpose of categorising humans for accessing single sex provisions.

It doesn't need to as you have been repeatedly told. Society works on the harm principle so it's a matter of establishing harm that legitimises inclusion or exclusion & compromise.

nope. Males can never be women no matter how many outdated sexist stereotypes they follow. It may make them sad but there it is.

As we have had this very discussion before, it is clear you still don’t understand how the dictionary works. Or lists of this nature. The number, in this instance ‘1’ groups together elements that refer to the same aspect of the meaning.

Hence there is also a number 2 and 3.

So, for instance we have :

2 a) sexually motivated phenomena or behavior.
b) sexual intercourse.

a) introduces the definition and b) remains in reference to that specific definition. There is no introduction of a new area of discussion after a). That would make the dictionary very confusing. Therefore new areas of meaning are given new numbers and then broken down further but still with direct relationship into a), b), c) etc.

Your personal introduction of behaviour that is not specific to reproduction would not be a valid interpretation of the dictionary.

If teachers said to their students ‘um no. Comprehension fail’, I think they would be getting many complaints.

Look mate. Women are saying no to males in female spaces. It doesn’t matter how much chat gpt gubbins you produce or how much you try to scold them, they’re saying no. Women don’t need a reason to say no to males in female in spaces the law says males are excluded. No means no. Why are you so determined to make women accept males in female only spaces? Why does their saying no bother you so much. Women are allowed to say no. I assume you’ve heard that word a lot in your life so you understand what it means.

"Surprised you missed out the girly pillow fights."

Facts hurt your feelings?

"But women's sports and toilets exist for different reasons from purely social situations."

I never said they did.

"We don't have women's toilets for the purpose of "girly chats", they're for women to attend to bodily functions without any males present. No matter how girly those males think they are."

Cultures vary particularly when they aren't vulnerable to moral panic.

"Women's sports are for women. Not mediocre men or those who have attempted to artificially weaken themselves because they think that women are just small, weak men."

Women's sports are for reasons of physical disadvantage not for the sake of it hence the qualification is disadvantage not sex.

"Look, it doesn't matter how much oestrogen you put into your system, it doesn't matter if you get castrated and have implants to enhance your moobs, none of this turns a man into a woman."

Thank you for your opinion.

Tell us @Howseitgoin , where do you personally sit on the “Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, Fashion and beauty loving, and Communicative” female* *scale.

Obviously you could rate yourself very highly on the fashion and beauty loving scale and we wouldn’t know. Would you like to point out where in your posting you have shown you are Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, and Communicative and therefore female?

"is that behaviour how the individual identifies themselves as having, or as some others identify them as having, or does it have to be as the majority of people identifies them as having ?"

Clearly an individual knows themselves best & apply it to the accepted social framework. IE They don't make the category rules, broader society does.

"Can you also explain at what point of life is this behavioural categorisation made? Does it change throughout the day? Does it change depending on the mood? Does it change as experiences change the person?"

Personality traits are considered to be stable especially from young adulthood through middle age, though they are not set in stone and can change over time. Research shows that while there are small, gradual shifts in the average levels of traits across the lifespan, the relative ranking of individuals on those traits remains remarkably consistent. This stability can increase with age, and traits can show some degree of change throughout a person's life.

Hahahahaha. That’s funny. So are you saying if a woman doesn’t go to these things she’s not a woman? So by your logic, all we need to do is treat males with a trans identity like the men they are and that will confirm they’re not women? Rightyho! I’m up for that.

Facts hurt your feelings again? It's not as if this stuff is scientifically controversial.

It's 'funny' how the peoples who demand men shouldn't access bathrooms 'cause they are prone to violence' get offended at the suggestion there are behaviours more common in women…