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?

And the reason why it's not an electoral issue is because 0.5% of the population doesn't materially affect peoples lives in any meaningful way unless of course they were bombarded with agit prop as in the UK.

individuals do not always align in female- and male-specific ways including behaviour

GC feminists say exactly this. You can behave in any way you like and it has no bearing on whether you're male or female. In law or in reality.

So if your bimodal measure is a specific "behaviour" - which one? - they won't align with sex. Because you're not measuring sex.

I'm asking whether you think that there is any difference between women and men in being able to do a "normal" sort of job under normal circumstances (i.e. not having given become a parent in the past couple of years).
No, no difference.

when you said it was "the very widespread adoption in society of the basic attitude that biology was irrelevant"
Perhaps it only appeared widespread from my perspective as a teenager then young women, being aware of the feminist thought of the time.
All the messaging I received, from teachers, parents, and mainstream media, was that women were well on the way to full equality, biology was irrelevant (except for childbirth and breastfeeding), and that anyone who believed women's biology was relevant was an old-fashioned sexist.

My point is, that if that is true, that biology is irrelevant (apart from childbirth), then it lends support to the trans view that it is possible for a man to 'live as a woman' - because being a woman is just a matter of clothes, behaviours, etc., i.e. gender stereotypes. Because biology is irrelevant.
This strain of feminist thought lent a massive boost to trans ideology. (Part of answering how we got here).

Many women, including feminists, don't think that biology is irrelevant. In particular, hormones affect the thoughts, emotions, and behaviours of both men and women.

And yet... opinion polls flow through to government support.

Indeed, 'actions' speak louder than words. Hence the UK Labour government has say that it supports the SC judgement, has also appointed a new EHRC head that will continue to support the SC judgement.

I would predict that after Sal Grover's case has finally reached a High Court decision, there will be plenty of political pressure applied to the Libs and to Labour in Australia. So what that some countries are slower than others to have governments that have to make commitments to ensure female single sex provisions remain single sex. What of it? Women are playing the long game.

There is no relevance to your posts about electoral issues. Because it doesn't have to be a major electoral platform for the changes that women seek to happen. You are desperately grasping onto something that is simply irrelevant at this point.

My point is, that if that is true, that biology is irrelevant (apart from childbirth), then it lends support to the trans view that it is possible for a man to 'live as a woman' - because being a woman is just a matter of clothes, behaviours, etc., i.e. gender stereotypes.

Ah! Ok, got you and thanks for persevering.
So my interpretation would be the polar opposite. Just because biology is irrelevant in terms of being able to do a job etc, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or matter in other factors.

My view has always been, essentially, to consider: is this a situation where biological sex matters? Is it a medical situation, or is there a risk of pregnancy, or is someone's sexual orientation (based on sex) involved, or is there a need to cover the top half of the body for dignity etc? If sex matters then it's relevant and don't be dishonest about what your sex is.

If it's a matter of are you - as an individual - good at maths, would you like to stay at home with the toddler instead of earning, would you like to be given basic respect in a pub or in the office, are you tall, are you able to voice your opinion on xyz, do you want a pint or a cocktail, are you diplomatic, do you want to watch the football... here we should treat anyone the same regardless of their sex, as other factors are the relevant ones here. Using sex as a proxy to assume the answers to any of these for an individual is not going to give you the right answers in all cases.

Secondly, if biology is the thing that makes you a woman/man, just because there are many situations in life where that is irrelevant - that means that the only thing you could do to be a woman or man is have the appropriate biological setup - not clothes etc. And that can't happen.

No-one in your given example is arguing it's clothes etc that makes someone a woman - that's a premise that has crept in from somewhere else that you haven't referenced before.
Going on the logic presented, if you can't be a woman because of biology, you can't be a woman.

My view has always been, essentially, to consider: is this a situation where biological sex matters? Is it a medical situation, or is there a risk of pregnancy, or is someone's sexual orientation (based on sex) involved, or is there a need to cover the top half of the body for dignity etc? If sex matters then it's relevant and don't be dishonest about what your sex is.

Agree.
Although the argument then becomes about "when, in what circumstances, does sex matter?"
Hence "I only want to pee, my genitals don't matter, so I should be allowed in a stall in the women's toilets".

if biology is the thing that makes you a woman/man, just because there are many situations in life where that is irrelevant - that means that the only thing you could do to be a woman or man is have the appropriate biological setup - not clothes etc. And that can't happen.

Agree - this was taken as a given and not even considered by those 3rd wave feminists. I don't think they imagined that making sex irrelevant in almost all circumstances would open the door to men claiming to be women.
(Not to say that transexuals and transvestites didn't exist before the 80s, but they were an rare oddity, not a political movement, and didn't register on the radar of feminists as being relevant to women).

Although it wasn't long before the academics saw a career opening (late 80s early 90s?) and started with the opaque gender-woo bollocks and trying to dismantle biology.

I've been watching old TV series.

Ally McBeal (1997 to 2002) has not aged well IMHO.
They had a unisex toilet in the office, for all staff, with cubicles with gaps top and bottom. At the time, I saw that as bizarre and quirky, done for comic effect, in line with the quirky and surreal vibe of the series.
But they also had a transwoman story in the first series, with the character being extremely sympathetically portrayed, 'most vulnerable', and murdered on the streets in the end.
With hindsight it was a straw in the wind.

Ugly Betty (2006 to 2010) is still great fun, if you want light-as-a-feather preposterous over-the-top soapy drama.
One of the main characters and storylines is the trans (mtf) Alexis.
Played by a tall but utterly beautiful biological woman.
Deliberately giving a deceitful impression to the world at large of what was possible in a "sex-change".

Apart from Doctor Who with Rose's 'daughter', have there been any mtf transwomen played by mature men?

Although the argument then becomes about "when, in what circumstances, does sex matter?"
Hence "I only want to pee, my genitals don't matter, so I should be allowed in a stall in the women's toilets".

Absolutely - and this is really the crux of it for most people, where the nitty-gritty is explored - even on both general sides I would say, except for the ones that insist sex doesn't exist at all or never ever matters. (I posted on another thread that most reasonable people would acknowledge it does, otherwise you can't even have a definition of trans without it!)

That's why the focus is often around spaces that have traditionally been single-sex but some are questioning (well - not actually questioning, denying) whether this should still be the case. Sports, toilets, changing rooms, prisons, medical wards, social groups such as WI, support groups, etc. If you think about it it's actually a really really small proportion of our lives that most of us spend in these places, and clearly there are significant numbers of people that require these to remain single-sex.

The argument that they should all be mixed sex (single-gender) is extremely weak and boils down to 'because I want to' (and as you say "my genitals don't matter for me or for anyone else"). Surely the answer is a small number of third spaces - some places are doing this.

If genderists thought that either: sex didn't matter at all, ever, including in medical situations, then they'd be arguing for, e.g. sending male people for examination if they didn't menstruate, or sending women for investigation if they did - all sorts of medical nonsense. And there would be a definition of 'trans' that didn't rely on birth sex.

or: that sex (or gender) matters in all situations - they'd be arguing for gender-segregated pavements, shops, cinema seats, buses etc.

The fact that the focus is so intently on some situations - spaces where women are usually vulnerable - is either a logical consequence of the fact this is the reason we have sex-segregated spaces, an odd coincidence.... or, massively telling.

have there been any mtf transwomen played by mature men?

There are the odd tv shows where a character is play by a transwoman mtf actor (often a fairly glamorous one who has altered their appearance quite drastically), but it's not necessarily part of the character to be trans - they're just 'she' (so could be supposed to be a female woman or a TW but it's unremarked on).
This likely just reflects their real life and unless there's a storyline about prostate cancer or pregnancy or something doesn't really conflict with what would likely be the way the actor is /is treated in real life.

The Baby Reindeer transwoman character is mtf tw in real life.

If you mean 'men' as in male people who don't claim to have a woman gender identity then I'm not sure about the recent past - and can't imagine this would take place today!

Indeed, 'actions' speak louder than words. Hence the UK Labour government has say that it supports the SC judgement, has also appointed a new EHRC head that will continue to support the SC judgement.

Yep & as I said it was an electoral issue only in the UK. Now try & think why that was & nowhere else. Media saturation driven moral panics have their comforts.

Sal Grover? Seriously?
Sal Grover was DOA before she even approached the courts because legislation had already sealed her fate. You can find her now barking in the wilderness that all her efforts in 'saving women's rights' have been ignored by media 'cause 'woke' when the truth is closer to the media in Australia knew Australians weren't going to give them clicks to what doesn't materially affect them in any meaningful way. And as I'm sure you know the recent election proved the 'trans panic' narrative was electoral poison given our right wing pollies barely mentioned it. You seriously think the average citizen hasn't got bigger fish to fry than the bogus threat of people that barely exist or come into contact with?

The self importance of the gender critical movement is breathtaking. Come a few years from now when the British public finally wakes up from the moral panic stupor to get wind that the loo panic hasn't solved their sexual violence problem & in fact its worse because all women's rights political capital has been spent on feckless pursuits no to mention dominated media space at the expense of real issues, GC ideology too will be DOA.

Exactly. If we are just talking about personality traits, why are we bothering with categories at all?

Which one? You tell me the next time you socialise how you distinguish males from females without knowing their biological sex which you would routinely do just like everyone else does
.
GC behaviour is part of their own 'problem' & they don't even know it.

Anyone who genuinely believes that people wanting single-sex spaces are claiming that it will 'solve domestic violence' has fundamentally misunderstood what we are saying.

Or they are pretending to because they don't have an argument.

As I said. It doesn’t have to be a manifesto item in an election. Change will start to happen in Australia without it having to be a major election issue.

You are dreaming if you think that the UK is going to change trajectory now. But as always it is always impressive just how much your hatred of women, particularly feminists, shows in your posts.

It is a bonkers thing to say. Absolutely bonkers.

Why would anyone say such a thing?

Interestingly, I have not yet been told which specific behaviour, when measured (and how it's measured), is shown in a bimodal distribution and how that links to sex. I assume anyone genuinely making that argument would actually be able to articulate that argument if they want anyone to listen to it.

Agree.
Although the argument then becomes about "when, in what circumstances, does sex matter?"
Hence "I only want to pee, my genitals don't matter, so I should be allowed in a stall in the women's toilets".

I think we will never stop having to ask "when, in what circumstances, does sex matter?" , but* in *these circumstances, if it is argued that sex is irrelevant, the logical conclusion is that there is no need for women's toilets and that they should all be mixed, not that men should be allowed to use women's toilets.

It's the same as arguing that there is no point in regulating gun ownership because it won't stop murder.

Yes he was a female police officer in something else I watched, no mention of him as “trans”.

And the notion that I "routinely" consult some imaginary list of behaviours that are either exclusively male or exclusively female in order to correctly and consistently identify someone's sex is, obviously, untrue.

But has made me chuckle!
"That person is bossy, must be one of those gobby women I hear about". "That other person is bossy, must be one of those strong manly leaders I hear about". "That person is studious, must be one of those nerd boys". "That person is studious, must be one of those girly swots".

"As I said. It doesn’t have to be a manifesto item in an election. Change will start to happen in Australia without it having to be a major election issue."

You would need a substantial grass roots movement for that & its just not happening because there's not motivation for it compared to say immigration. Why? People in general do not perceive a threat because there isn't one in their lives. Where harm could be determined IE sports, sporting organisations have adjusted on their own sans public out cry or government intervention mind you as they have done for other risk fairness factors like doping.

A balanced perspective involves attending to the conflicting needs and wishes of the whole population, not ignoring those of a group’s (in either direction) because it’s such a small number.

Whether it’s 1 or 1,000,000 natal males wanting to access a female only provision, every time one does, it denies 100% of the female users a single sex provision. In addition, if this were permissible in law, it would also deny 100% of all females single sex provision, whether a natal male used it or not.

Suggesting anything written above reflects ‘moral panic’ is absurd. There has to be a legitimate and proportionate rationale to create single sex provision in the first place, so wanting to ensure they are only used by the people they are intended for is rational.

Sexed on average differences in behaviour & that they are influenced by genetic & hormonal traits are hardly scientifically controversial. And given these traits don't always result in normative out comes it stands to reason that would apply to behavioural out comes.

What behaviours are more normative to different sexes?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956064_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_and_Social_Behavior

Still waiting for your answer to my question btw.

It is forever elusive.

It is an amorphous list of behaviours that may relate to some people of either sex. Some people wish to use it to categorise people into different sex classes which is very concerning because it seems that now we will have people flitting between sex categories depending on their mood and the situation.

Please, the proportionate rule for discrimination was already in place prior to the law change.