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?

Interesting discussion. When I've talked about this with trans people, they insist it's not their appearance that makes them a man or a woman. I guess this poster is telling them they're wrong.

Yep.

Howse must live in a very different place from me. 'Sartorial presentation' really isn't a thing here in rural Wales, and clothing for both sexes is very similar. I definitely don't look at clothing to decide whether someone is male or female.

You may need to re read the thread. The conversation has moved (as is often common) from the initial discussion to social distinctions on sex that influences how people perceive themselves.

This is an example of how people become victims of false propaganda narratives. It's not a matter of 'kindness' that underpins social freedoms/limitations but whether or not an action is harmful. IE Entitlement depends on harm that isn't evidenced in women sharing public bathrooms with trans women.

"The harm principle is a legal and philosophical concept, famously proposed by John Stuart Mill, that states government intervention is only justified to prevent harm to others. It asserts that individuals should have the freedom to act as they wish, even if their actions are risky or self-destructive, as long as those actions do not cause harm to another person. This principle limits state power to restrict personal liberty, with the phrase "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" serving as a common illustration."

Ahhh so this 'study' includes a comparative number of trans people who haven't undergone a male puberty &/or have had hormones & surgery?

Please….

As usual you conveniently remove context to support your inconsistent position. The subject was how inflammatory language or violent actions beget violent language/actions. IE ideas aren't the problem its how they are 'framed' in dehumanising & demonising language that are so 'chilling' of ideas is irrelevant.

My comment was including sartorial presentation among other things like morphology & skin. IE the whole package.

The human brain makes categorical computations in milliseconds that are capable taking in more than one factor & weighing them up. If they weren't we wouldn't still be here…

Women have told you that they don't want to share public toilets and other women-only spaces with men, no matter how those men identify. Some women experience discomfort from the presence of males in those spaces. Some experience fear. These are harms.

Some men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' have harmed women or girls in women's toilets. Katie Dolatowski for example, who sexually assaulted a girl in a supermarket toilet.

But men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' are not harmed by continuing to use men's toilets.

Denial factor = 1000%

Yup I live in a big city that I'm sure exist in Wales. And like all big cities we have these things called 'women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores' that if didn't exist anymore would send Western economies spiralling.

You didn't answer the question. How do you know if he's a man or a transwoman?

Women have told you that they don't want to share public toilets and other women-only spaces with men, no matter how those men identify. Some women experience discomfort from the presence of males in those spaces. Some experience fear. These are harms.

By this logic it's also 'harmful' for men & women to work together particularly when they are alone which is often the case. See where this logic goes?

"Some men who identify as so-called 'transwomen' have harmed women or girls in women's toilets. Katie Dolatowski for example, who sexually assaulted a girl in a supermarket toilet."

Err It's already illegal to harm people & no one is suggesting that law change. Allowing trans people to share bathrooms with women isn't legalising assault its legalising sharing a bathroom.

Lesbians sexually offend at higher rates than straight women are you suggesting they too shouldn't have access to women's bathrooms?

Substantially more women are assaulted in the workplace so are you suggesting that justifies separate work spaces there too?

Oh wait…

An assessment of all the factors I mentioned obviously.

I said I live in a rural part of Wales where there are no big cities. In my opinion big cities are things to be avoided and I have no interest in 'women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores'.

Fair enough, I appreciate your limitations on male/female distinctions in more populated areas.

Here's a question for you given you sound like some one in more in tune with nature. Do you you really think that given the human body evolved for purposes of reproduction that wouldn't implicate that the mind did too?

Anyone convinced that men are women yet?

Or that women should have to give up their legal right to single sex services because men demand it?

I see we're getting the increasingly desperate repetitions of 'there's no harm!!! Lesbians...erm....workplace spaces where women aren't in a state of undress....erm, nothing to see here!!!!' from Hows, with a wee allusion to women's 'entitlement' thrown in.

As said before, classic incel arguments.

So are you saying all those TRA threatening to kill, rape and attack women are actually going to do those things if women keep saying no? So all those signs encouraging people to “kill TERFS” are really really bad and that’s the dehumanising language youre talking about? PHEW. For a hot minute I was thinking you were saying women saying no to men was the problem. I’m so glad you condemn threats towards women. It helps to know men are on our side.

Look mate. You can scold all you like. Woman have said no. The law has said no. Men are not allowed into female spaces no matter how prettily they dress. No. It’s a complete sentence and it means no. Surely you learned about consent before?

And around we go again.

Hormones and surgery do not change male cues that female people use to distinguish sex. If you don’t understand that skeletal cues, gait, movement of leverage points, skull shape and so many other aspects that male people can’t change with hormones or surgery once these are developed and discernible with interaction and fully clothed. And even the distance between nose plus lips, tilt of eyes are rarely changed with surgery. Hair is a huge give away, and wigs are too.

Not to mention that over time much of that surgery may have to be redone as faces change with age, but how many male people will go and do it again which would be a different ‘tell’.

You have been over reliant on puberty blockers for male people across the threads. I will just keep reminding you that puberty blockers rarely make a genetically looking male face look female. And retains other male body cues. Puberty blockers also depend on when they are given, and usually they are not given before testosterone has already made changes. However, it does seem to be that you are now trying to use very rare puberty blocked boys to prop up your weak and flawed theory about using personality traits to correctly identify a person’s sex.

Just because you, personally, seem to have so much trouble correctly identifying a person’s sex through observation and interaction doesn’t make your experience the universal one.

You've described your "assessment" as something that's indistinguishable from "guessing".

No criteria, no checking if it's ever been correct, no logical steps, largely if not entirely based on appearance. Possibly underpinned by stereotypes on whether they are "nurturing" etc, although obviously you haven't been able to actually set out your working here.

That's the best you can do at determining the inner gender identity that means someone is a man or a woman?

And again you forgot about consent.

Shall we go back and copy and paste pages of posts from your failed attempt to convince women that if they need toilets sex segregated they should be demanding segregation in the workplace?

Another repeat post. It seems we are really just cycling through the same posted theories and links that never quite provide the answers that you believe they do.

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. Therefore when female people are talking about why they need single sex spaces, they are generally referring to a wide range of 'harms' that is not limited to physical / sexual assault. Those other harms are not reportable and are very rarely studied. That does not mean though that they are not significant and can be dismissed as you have attempted to do.

There is no further context needed to support the statements you keep making. People can always go back and check for context from the original threads and posts. It doesn't change the pattern.

Gosh.... imagine that though! female people are constantly being dehumanised and demonised by male people who are demanding access into female single sex provisions. Yet female people are not retaliating to being so dehumanised and demonised. Plus, it has now been shown in testimony in at least two court cases, that it doesn't matter how female people 'frame' their words, just verbalising the concept that male people should be excluded from female single sex spaces in any way is considered enough for intimidatory action to be justified in some people's opinion.

The asymmetry is very clear. Again, if you did not intend to be intimidating female people with your posts, then maybe you need to stop doubling down and defending what you posted.

In partial answer to OP's questions, I offer Janice Turner in The Times today:

No one bears more blame for gender ideology capturing public institutions and the global erasure of women’s rights than Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights. It was he who convened in 2006 a private meeting of NGOs, lawyers and LGBT activists in Indonesia which drew up what became known as the Yogyakarta Principles.

Key among these was the idea that biological sex as a legal and political construct should be wholly replaced by gender identity. No one at Yogyakarta raised for a second the impact upon women or girls, and yet its precepts trickled down through the UN and human rights bodies into national governments and transnational institutions like the International Olympic Committee.

It is because of O’Flaherty that rapists could be housed in women’s prisons and female athletes made to compete against males. British feminists have been unpicking the ensuing mess for over a decade, culminating in April’s Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological reality. So O’Flaherty’s last remaining weapon is to accuse Britain this week of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, which is still suffused in the misogyny of Yogyakarta.