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?

“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”

I have been repeatedly told many things by you. You saying these things do not make them accurate, or even true, interpretations of the topic being discussed though.

Luckily when you are discussing the harm principle, you are referring to safeguarding.

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for single sex spaces.

Mate. Please stop with the regressive sexist stereotypes. Males are excluded from female spaces because they are male. Nothing is gonna change that. They can get upset about it and you can come on here scolding women til the year 33333 but it will never change. Males are not women.

Personality traits differ from moment to moment depending on the situation as well.

But I am glad you acknowledge that personality traits change over a lifetime. And that they are all to be self assessed.

This means that they are not suitable criteria for categorising human sex classes in any way.

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.

Illogical cope. If the company of females didn't offer other females something different from the company of males they wouldn't seek it out exclusively.

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

Nope. Comprehension fail. The comment references circumstances where trans women want to be included which was the context of the discussion.

"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."

As I said in my previous posts, on average differences qualify as sex distinctions not to mention males that share these traits don't tend to express them in the same way/style see: Child rearing.

Oh lord, what a ridiculous reach…😂

I see. So you have resorted to the initial behaviour of “COMPREHENSION FAIL” without the caps and the emojis.

Shall I do it back? It must make you feel super feminine to do it.

“Illogical cope. If the company of females didn't offer other females something different from the company of males they wouldn't seek it out exclusively.”

Or, radical thought, female people seek out other female people for many reasons including feeling they are in a safe space to socialise and discuss things that only impact female people.

I really don’t think your “Illogical cope” belittling tactic works the way you think it does.

”The comment references circumstances where trans women want to be included which was the context of the discussion.”

Not really. You said:

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

Women’s sports and toilets are not ‘social situations’. And it depends on the reason for the mother’s dinner and women’s club.

But it is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make anyway. Just because a male person wants to be included in single sex provisions doesn’t mean he should be, regardless of the self identification based on changeable personally traits.

What is rather clear is that some male people don’t like to hear the word ‘no’.

That is a difficult paragraph to parse.

I think you are suggesting that there are some objective differences between how some behavioural traits manifest, or are expressed, in males and females.

Working this through, if it was understood that you could tell the difference between males and female through child rearing behaviour, and then it was discovered that some males were being identified as females through their child rearing behaviour, the conclusion would be that the behaviour doesn’t differentiate between the sexes, not that the males are actually female.

"Or, radical thought, female people seek out other female people for many reasons including feeling they are in a safe space to socialise and discuss things that only impact female people."

Sure, that might part of it but certainly not all of it. Shared experiences, shared interests, shared views/understanding are also right up there that trans women could share in because they are down stream from personality traits.

"Women’s sports and toilets are not ‘social situations’. And it depends on the reason for the mother’s dinner and women’s club."

Lots of women play sport to socialise as do men. As far as bathrooms go the broad context of the discussion are circumstances that trans women want to be included in so its 'social' as in out in society.

"What is rather clear is that some male people don’t like to hear the word ‘no’."

As do some women. Your point?

on average differences qualify as sex distinctions

That can't be parsed as a logical sentence if you're using those words to mean what they mean.

Two things are either distinct or they're not.

I didn't realise how much we needed to explain here!

Perhaps we need to listen more to Molly.

https://x.com/okaybiology/status/1977652666634469851?s=46

Here is a male finally admitting the truth.

“I never felt fully accepted in their [women’s] company, which led me to feel increasingly uncomfortable.

Then something remarkable happened. I started to meet and become friends with other trans people at support groups, meetings and gigs.

Before long, my entire friend circle was trans people. And in many ways, it’s just easier - you don’t have to explain anything to them, they just get it “

I think it is good for Molly to be honest about how Molly never felt fully included despite women trying hard to be inclusive.

"I think you are suggesting that there are some objective differences between how some behavioural traits manifest, or are expressed, in males and females."

Yep. I'm married I 'care' for my children as does my husband but we don't 'care' in the same way. Our 'caring' styles vary as they usually do between parents.

"Working this through, if it was understood that you could tell the difference between males and female through child rearing behaviour, and then it was discovered that some males were being identified as females through their child rearing behaviour, the conclusion would be that the behaviour doesn’t differentiate between the sexes, not that the males are actually female."

Maybe if you didn't conflate group differences with individual differences it might be easier to "parse".

get offended at the suggestion there are behaviours more common in women…

Do you actually think anyone is saying that? That's hilarious.

These behaviours you insist that are distinct to one sex or the other but also only "more common" so appear in both.
Would you say "being violent" is one, then?

I’m Scottish, and a bit older than you. Several pieces of the jigsaw that I experienced:

Scotland in the 70s and 80s was a pretty harsh, judgemental and repressive society. Very sexist, misogynist and dismissive of women. A lot of social control on behaviour and deep disapproval of any kind of sexual expression - except of course the strip clubs and porn. Sex was not talked about at all and was considered very shameful. So when we ‘played’ a game called ‘rape’ at school aged 11-12, which involved groups of boys choosing a girl to chase, catch and pull her knickers down, none of us even thought to tell a teacher. And none of them intervened, to my memory.

In the early 90s when I went to uni, the pendulum swing right the other way, and there was a huge surge of interest in diversity, tolerance, celebrating difference. I remember my younger sister joining various left wing / young socialist groups at uni and becoming very disapproving of anything that sounded critical of any minority groups. It didn’t take much for this to become ‘anything goes’ - but with all the underlying misogyny still firmly in place of course. Scotland has been so desperate to get away from being such a repressive society it had gone way too far in the opposite direction. There’s so much performative ‘kindness’ goes on, people desperate to show that they are non judgmental, so they can’t be judged for it 🙄. I love my fellow Scots but God we are world class at sanctimony.

Another aspect of the heavily repressive society was that porn was buried, shameful and very exciting. It’s no coincidence that so many of today’s men-in-skirts are my age (mid 50s), exposed to their fathers secret stash of porn in the back of the wardrobe. Transvestism, the compulsive fetish of being sexually aroused by the idea of himself dressed as a ‘slutty’ woman, was something lots of men did, in secret. But now, ‘anything goes’ so out they lumber, into the sunlight. My first boyfriend was one of them (transvestite, no idea how he gets his kicks these days)

Molly doesn't speak for all trans people however convenient it would be for you.

Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps people don't enjoy being excluded from circumstances they are already part of like school, work, club etc socialising?

It's one thing to say a person who can't make friends go & seek out like minded people but quite another when they are excluded from the immediate social environment they can't avoid.

Perhaps a penchant for social exclusion of 'out groups' is part of what aligns gender criticals with the far right?

'Sure, that might part of it but certainly not all of it. Shared experiences, shared interests, shared views/understanding are also right up there that trans women could share in because they are down stream from personality traits.'

Bollocks.

If the shared experiences and perspective are based on a group being female, then personality traits are irrelevant.

'Lots of women play sport to socialise as do men. As far as bathrooms go the broad context of the discussion are circumstances that trans women want to be included in so its 'social' as in out in society.'

And if female people want to add the risks associated with playing sport with male people, they can play in mixed sex teams. As we have said repeatedly over many threads now.

And no. Sorry. Your clarification still does not make your argument any stronger. Male people who want a 'social' experience of using a female single sex toilet is exactly why safeguarding principles should keep that male person out. Imagine thinking that a male person utilising a group of female people to validate their identity without that group's consent, is appropriate.

'As do some women. Your point?'

My point is pretty clearly relevant to your argument above. Consent.

Female people have the right to have single sex provisions. Male people not accepting 'no' when female people have said 'you are not included' when legitimate discrimination is needed, or telling female people that that single sex provision is not 'needed', is indeed a significant issue. It is after all the only context that we have been having this discussion now for two months.

Well, this post is very enlightening. Thank you. Well done again.

I know! The Marvelous Magical Sometimes-Correct Biology Diviner turns out to be "sometimes some women display some behaviours that some people associate with being female" >>> XXXX >>> their sex isn't their actual sex

I think you are suggesting that there are some objective differences between how some behavioural traits manifest, or are expressed, in males and females."
Yep. I'm married I 'care' for my children as does my husband but we don't 'care' in the same way. Our 'caring' styles vary as they usually do between parents.

"Because I've seen two individuals do a thing differently, I conclude that each sex has a distinct set of behaviours which we can use as a more accurate proxy for sex than sex itself."

its a good job we’re not relying on gender stereotypes to define women and men. I used to feel sorry for males with a trans identity, then I took their advice and educated myself. It didn’t go the way they expected. I have not seen any reason to believe they are women in any way and actually thing their anger at women saying no makes them in some ways more of a threat to women than other men

It is another rinse and repeat day.

Female people need single sex provisions based on their sex class.

Some male people demand access to those female single sex provisions and are told 'no'.

So, comes the attempt to destabilise the sex categories in any way possible to allow male people to be legitimately classed as ‘female’.

Then if that fails, attempt to delegitimise the premise for needing single sex provisions.

Then if that fails, attempt to discredit the groups who are working to support women’s and girl’s needs.

Then if that fails, attempt the wheedling ‘it is only a few’.

Finally, abuse and belittle those who disagree.

Or do all of these at once and in any order.

Rinse and repeat the next day.

But what if some women are caring, helle, and some men aren't? Blows everything you've said out of the water.

OK, let’s clarify within and between group differences and how they intersect with categories.

Biological sex is a category defined by between-group differences in reproductive anatomy. These anatomical differences form the boundary between the two sex groupings: male and female.

Other traits may cluster within one sex or the other, and may even be unique to one group, but this does not alter or undermine the category of sex itself, because it is defined by reproductive anatomy.

There are many ways to classify human beings, based on traits such as behaviour, morphology, or social roles.

If a particular trait or pattern is mutually exclusive to males or females, then it can be incorporated as a defining feature of the sex category. If a trait does not reliably map onto male/female distinctions, then it requires its own separate category or classification system.

This preserves the integrity of the sex category, which is defined by reproductive anatomy, while allowing for other meaningful classifications to exist without conflating them.

If you have someone with male reproductive anatomy (e.g. a prostate), they are male. There are no traits or other characteristics that alter this. If they have traits or characteristics that are more common in females, this means that those traits aren’t a useful indicator of sex.

Yep.

Very much enjoying this real time demonstration of "how we got here" which is that it doesn't matter how many times women say no, point out women aren't a feeling in a man's head or a mass of stereotyped behaviour and then say no again, men don't take any notice of our no whatsoever. They just go on and on and ooooonnnnnnnn