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?

The asymmetry is very clear.

I got the impression that the FILIA conference was a bit of a turning point, with more MPs prepared to recognise that it's not just a case of toxicity on both sides. Roșie Duffield îs no longer the only labour MP who will speak openly about women's rights.

Also the O'Flaherty letters will have infuriated many.

All this "I saw two people doing things differently therefore my guesses at to what inner gender someone is are what should determine whether a person is a man or woman" actually is a little bit illuminating as to the muddled viewpoint of some men.

It's similar to "I see some people who, based on their clothes and hair, don't look like the men that I imagine are the ones who assault women, therefore what's the problem? "

Whereas many women know that there are smiling, or long-haired, or jewellery-wearing - whatever secret factors form the 'assessment' - male people who have had their elbow on a woman's throat, or stood in a doorway preventing them from leaving, or killed their children.

Whether or not trans identifying men are more or less of a threat than other men is irrelevant if there is no way to differentiate between the two or even define what it means to be trans.

Any coherent argument needs to acknowledge that there are only two options - mixed sex or single sex.

There is no option of women + trans identifying men because nobody can be excluded from that group.

And tbh, someone who believes there are physical signifiers of proven reduced risk of harm to women surely has a duty to explain to women specifically what these signifiers are?

All this "it's to do with what they look like but I won't tell you what exactly" is unhelpful.

Ahh - the nightly Howie howling at the women again. 😀 It's becoming a bit of a routine.

I see we're back to the old - "if you refuse to undress for men in a changing room / toilet, then you must be in favour of sex segregated workplaces" argument.

Poor Howie. Sad times and all that.

😄The clock strikes 11pm and H appears

I do think we're being used as a sounding board for gender studies class theorising

And yet you're still a woman?
How can that be? 🤔

If only it was a new theory tested each day. But alas, it is the same tired theories that have major flaws or don’t even come close to the reality.

It is just rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

I have only lived in major cities since late teens. I still probably dress like OldCrone mentions. Imagine women shunning fashion, cosmetic and jewellery stores? Whodathunkit? Still a woman though.

Well, if Western economies start "spiralling" because you lot are shunning women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores, I hope you realise it's all your fault

(I admit I did laugh out loud at that particular gem)

Absolutely! How will civilisation survive with less fashion / cosmetic / jewellery stores?

I've been to rural areas. That's the place where male and female animals are kept in different fields, and male animals with massive balls are kept in a field by themselves. I'm told it's dead easy to determine which animal goes in which field.

Goodness, how would the city dwellers cope?

Apparently, we are still at that point of a poster desperately trying to convince women that stereotyped or even just ‘averages’ on some self-reported data collection mechanism are a reliable categorisation tool.

That ‘averages’ are somehow considered boundaries for the access to single sex provisions.

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

Given that a sexual offence is 99 times more likely to have been committed by a man than a woman, the sexuality of women who are accused of sexual offences seems rather irrelevant.

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?

To clear guidance in the EA on when a service may be segregated by sex.

I did appreciate the reappearance of predatory lesbians, I was rather missing them.

Hang on, it was you who posted this study. Are you now saying you disagree with it?

TBH I'm confused as to what it is you are saying

The sheep near me (rural) have in recent weeks been seen in their tupping accoutrements, ready for the season. Perhaps Hows thinks the farmer goes around and asks them their gender identity to determine which sheep does what?

Clearly the sheep need a questionnaire to rate their behavioural traits on a Likert scale. I don't know how else the farmer could proceed.

I'm quite enjoying the image of Howse mistaking a bull's ear tags for decorative earrings and trying to milk it.

I am quite useful in the use of rings to castrate calves. I never had to ask though which ones to ring.

'Ooh, I like your earrings Daisy! Are they an 'expression of your femininity'? Did you purchase them from a women's jewellery store in your local large town? Well then, I'll just set up my stool and bucket...

....Uh oh. Oh fuck. Ruuuunnnn!'

Just a reminder that male people taking estrogen do not experience a reversal in their facial structure. Puberty blockers only partially prevent some male facial structural changes and not enough, despite all the assertions, when combined with genetics to fully stop other male body cues either. I would be surprised to see any study that has been done that proves that 100% a male who has taken puberty blockers is not still correctly sexed by enough female people to still mean it is an issue.

But all this is irrelevant.

If a person is male, they should be fully respecting the needs of female people to have single sex spaces.

All these attempts at destabilising sex categories is irrelevant. But what this constant barrage of posting to seek to convince women to allow any male people above 8 years old into single sex provisions is actually showing a significant lack of respect for women’s boundaries and their rights to single sex spaces.

Ruth Hunt is another player in How Did We Get Here and she pretends to not know M O'F as she brings up his concerns in the House of Lords. I wonder what influence got her appointed to the H of L? I know she was head of Stonewall over the T takeover. Many pro-ideology bods seem to be in key positions where pro-self id decisions can be made or influenced, all part of the Denton's playbook I assume.

https://x.com/treesey/status/1978744542263193660

I have attempted to come back to this thread a couple of times but feel pretty exhausted following the derailments of the current detractor. I also feel like I've missed something about this behavioural theory - if a man says he identifies as a woman but doesn't exhibit any of the proposed 'female behaviours', is he not a woman after all?

Thank you for the resources though - @PencilsInSpace I'm really only just pouring through your post at the moment so it might take me a while to get through it all but I appreciate all the responses.