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?

I'm not sure what point you think you're making with this list of stereotypes.

It may be true that these traits are more common in women than in men. But they're not exclusive to women, and men who exhibit these traits are still men.

I mean, suggesting that some men are very nurturing and sensitive and love wearing sparkly earrings, therefore they should be allowed in women's loos is not a persuasive argument.

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

Understanding/perspective is downstream of personality. Its why political preferences, life choices, special interests & personality are inextricably linked

"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."

Your'e confusing group traits with individual ones. Not all trans women pose a physical risk.

"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."

That you need to continually deliberately misrepresent my words is very telling. Trans people aren't preferring women's loos for the 'funzies' of validation either. And consent is a personal choice not a group approved one for public utilities unless a society democratically decides so.

Wow.

So basically, the definition of what 'expressions of feminity' which we're all seething with resentment about and which we've been waiting for for half a thread consists of -

How much we cry (so men who cry are 'girly'? Isn't that a very regressive view?)

How 'nurturing' we are (to whom? Are we not women if we don't 'nuture' men determined to destroy women's right to single sex spaces?)

Good at teamwork (male sports team and the like might be surprised to find out that they are 'expressing their feminity')

Clothes and jewellery (ah, we're back to spinny skirts and make up).

And the insistence by Hows that women's toilets are a 'social' space just harks back to the pillow fight analogy. That porn soaked men imagine that we're all in the toilets giggling away, sharing lipsticks and offering each other tampons on the regular.

"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."

That's all very nice in theory but more often than not in practice IE social settings* we don't rely reproductive anatomy to distinguish males from females. Definitions are reliant on social usage which includes not just what we think about a concept but how we act*.

was anyone really expecting something less silly?

Also, according to this poster, we on this majority women board aren’t nurturing and caring in the way we should be, are we? And yet we are women and trans identified men claiming to be women are all men. Many of us don’t even head tilt, giggle, cry at the drop of a hat or wear a spinny skirt. Letting the side down, but hey ho.

Thanks for the helpful summary. I have been scanning this and other recent threads and have concluded:

1. You folk have the patience of saints to recover ground again and again.
2. We appear to be in the attrition phase where these ideas will be dismantled brick by brick.

Long form discussion demonstrates that once the be kind, inclusive vibe of GI is taken apart, it appears to be slippery, shape-shifting, and substance-less sloganeering. So many words wasted on an idea of so little merit. Sad times indeed.

Really hoping lots of people coming here to educate themselves see what we are up against and come away truly enlightened.

"I'm not sure what point you think you're making with this list of stereotypes."

Of course you don't because your starting place is with the false assumption that that only reproductive traits distinguish sex which they usually don't in practice.

You also can't seem to comprehend that typical gendered behavioural associations being societally embraced to distinguish men from women is not a prescriptivist argument but a descriptivist one of the societal conventions we built. IE no one is suggesting this is right or wrong just that it is. It is a separate concept unrelated to patriarchal expectations.

"I mean, suggesting that some men are very nurturing and sensitive and love wearing sparkly earrings, therefore they should be allowed in women's loos is not a persuasive argument."

Nor are female reproductive traits. Society decides based on The Harm Principle. And globally whether trans people are a harm to women in public bathrooms isn't as settled as you would like it to be.

I do love these extended expositions of the illogical, reality-denying batshittery of the gender identarians.

Truly, they do our work for us. Keep it up 👍.

It’s just so obvious.

Very true. Despite Howie's endless seething at women saying no to men in women's spaces and yet women still tell him no.

I never understand the attraction of spending so much time lecturing others online who you evidently despise. Presumably it fills a gaping hole in their lives but still very sad to see.

Indeed @MrsOvertonsWindow

However, these tedious posts do allow for some great informative (and often funny) posts to be posted by those with far greater patience than I have. 😁

Of course you don't because your starting place is with the false assumption that that only reproductive traits distinguish sex which they usually don't in practice.

What the hell do you mean by this? What do you think is the difference between men and women? Do you know where babies come from?

You also can't seem to comprehend that typical gendered behavioural associations being societally embraced to distinguish men from women is not a prescriptivist argument but a descriptivist one of the societal conventions we built.

Is this a word salady way of saying that stereotypes are based on average/typical behaviour of the sexes? If so, WE KNOW THAT. But a man behaving in a way which is more typical of women is still a man. Men don't become women just because they adopt behaviour more typical of women.

The lack of comprehension is all yours.

Society decides based on The Harm Principle. And globally whether trans people are a harm to women in public bathrooms isn't as settled as you would like it to be.

Why not make everything mixed sex then?

OP, how we got here is at least partly because after being subjected to a couple of decades of this sort of relentless nonsense many companies, organisations and governments reached the 'fine, whatever you say, now please just shut up' stage and gave in.

And many individual politicians and people in positions of influence either aren't very clever, or are aren't intellectually confident, and don't want people to know. So when a lot of people are saying somethin complicated they don't understand, they assume that the fault is theirs for not understanding and they start loudly agreeing with the confusing thing so that they also seem clever.

What Bint said.

Using average levels of traits shared across classes as a defining feature of a class: an experiment.

Instead of behaviour, let's use an easy-to-measure category that varies little through adulthood - certainly one not changing on a day-to-day basis.

Height. The average man is taller than the average woman.

Globally, the average male height is 5ft 7in. Therefore we can say that anyone 5ft 7in or taller is a man, and anyone below 5ft 7in is (as the Green party would have it) a non-man - or 'woman'.

Therefore Napoleon was a woman. As are half the men in India (average height of an Indian man is 5ft 5in). Tom Cruise just squeaks into the male category, but Michael J Fox is now an actress. And Dutch women, at an average height of 5ft 7in, are men.

Why do we need to distinguish between the sexes in situations other than where sex matters?

If I’m out for dinner, or in a pub, or in a library, I am not interested in the sex of strangers inhabiting the same spaces as me. Nor do I care about their gender identity, gender expression or what they had for breakfast.

Even if I had a unique hobby of surveying the general public to consciously acknowledge the sex of those around me, how would this impact anyone but me? No difference would arise from me correctly or incorrectly sexing someone?

If I was in a pub and on the other side of the room there was an articulate couple, collaborating to solve a crossword, occasionally comforting each other as they cried together, both in immaculate make up and spinny skirts, why should their sex matter to anyone other than themselves, and possibly each other.

If either of them went to use the female loo, their sex does then matter and to every female who is a user of those loos. But, even here, their eloquence, empathy, and spinny skirt holds no consequence. Just their sex.

And also, there's a large group of entitled men, having never been told no, who can't quite believe that they're being denied exactly what they want, when they want it. 'Now, now, now!'

They seem to be stuck in the ego driven, demanding toddler stage forever. The sense of sheer disbelief that the adults have said 'no, you can't take that toy off someone else/can't have unlimited chocolate/ can't watch TV through the night/can'tdemand cutted up pear when there isn't any in the fruit bowl'.

And instead of setting firm, consistent boundaries like you would with toddlers, politicians and organisations said 'oh dear, let's just give in for an easy life'. Which is fine for a while, but then you get a monstrously entitled small child who wants the world to dance to their tune and 'who cares about everyone else?'.

And now there's these monstrously entitled, demanding men who want what they want now and screw everyone (particularly women) else.

And also, there's a large group of entitled men, having never been told no, who can't quite believe that they're being denied exactly what they want, when they want it. 'Now, now, now!'

They seem to be stuck in the ego driven, demanding toddler stage forever. The sense of sheer disbelief that the adults have said 'no, you can't take that toy off someone else/can't have unlimited chocolate/ can't watch TV through the night/can'tdemand cutted up pear when there isn't any in the fruit bowl'.

And instead of setting firm, consistent boundaries like you would with toddlers, politicians and organisations said 'oh dear, let's just give in for an easy life'. Which is fine for a while, but then you get a monstrously entitled small child who wants the world to dance to their tune and 'who cares about everyone else?'.

And now there's these monstrously entitled, demanding men who want what they want now and screw everyone (particularly women) else.

Sorry about double post, weird gateway issue!

How dare you say no to meeeeee.

How interesting that only one sex isn’t allowed to say no.

"Understanding/perspective is downstream of personality."

And you are entrenched in The Five Factor Model. You seem to depend on it wholly to support the theory you are positing here on MN at the moment.

"Your'e confusing group traits with individual ones. Not all trans women pose a physical risk."

Is this where I just follow your lead and post 'Wrong' or some other phrase? Should I do what you and add an emoji? What is the going trend with you at the moment?

Yes, all male people do pose a physical risk to female people if they have experienced any male puberty. And it has also been shown in studies that male people who have puberty blockers have delayed growth completion, meaning they are likely to be taller than their final height predicted from birth. This is also an advantage that female people do not have, and it causes an additional risk of injury to female people.

So, it is correct to say that both individually and as a group male people competing in female single sex sports are a physical risk.

"That you need to continually deliberately misrepresent my words is very telling. Trans people aren't preferring women's loos for the 'funzies' of validation either. And consent is a personal choice not a group approved one for public utilities unless a society democratically decides so."

I have not 'misrepresented' your words. I have correctly pointed out what happens when a male person uses a female toilet as per your 'social' point. Male people accessing female single sex spaces are not accessing those spaces for any benefit to any female person in that space. It is irrelevant why they have accessed that space. In the UK, it is democratically decided as per the law. I am glad that you pointed this out.

Looking back, this was an interesting exchange.

I don't believe I have on these threads pointed out the negative consequences outside the law to male people if they didn't do what I have been discussing. I have discussed the negative impact on female people when male people demand to be in spaces that are designated female single sex.

Is this supposed to be comparable to telling women that if they don’t agree with a group of male people that we all know how it ends, like Charlie Kirk & October 7 and the violent and intimidation we receive from protestors and from male people on the internet:

"While I appreciate your uneasiness in maintaining social conventions because you may believe they facilitate social harms, one could say that about anybody being 'let of the hook' for uncivilised/harmful behaviour. It's essentially saying 'because I disagree with you I don't have to treat you humanely'. And we all know how that ends: See Charlie Kirk.”

and

“The fact is free speech absolutism & civilised speech are mutually exclusive. And when added to the normalisation of inflammatory rhetoric is going after people's right to self determination, dignity & safety without opportunity for recourse is begging for a back lash of barbaric vigilantism. Injustice breeds injustice. Brutality breeds brutality. We just saw this in Gaza & Israel. October 7 didn't come out of a vacuum but decades of violent oppression as did many brutal historical uprisings. ”

Let’s not forget that women saying no, is us provoking male people to abuse and intimidate us:

“That's happening now which only encourages the vicious circle of provocation & retaliation. Of course what Terf Is A Slur.com won't conveniently show is the preceding provocations.”

Also remember that male people being excluded from the provisions they demand to access should not be expected to “take oppression lying down”.

Of course, there was this is the ‘Social Responsibility’ statement stating that women need to be social with male people so they don’t harm us:

“I have had the same concerns in terms of the gender critical movement moving towards separatism as that undermines the feminist project. I think it’s spawning from the idea that women would endure less direct misogyny in a separatist-minded spaces, but the problem is when men are separated from women, they become even more misogynistic. They then have even less incentive to hire women or vote for women.”

If you have no intention of intimidating female people who disagree with you, Howsa, and your theories on why male people should be accessing single sex provisions, perhaps you should not post these kinds of statements.

And no. There is no context to these statements that mean your words have been misrepresented. Your words are very clear, and you were also told by different poster why your words were a problem and you doubled down on those statements and defended them.

Did you know nen are not women and therefore not allowed in female spaces? Women said no. I know you can’t stop the feeling, but you go on and on and on…. And did you know on us an anagram of no? Aren’t words fab?