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?

But this is so basic. 100% of women and girls would be affected if their single sex space was denied to them. They may say they don’t mind, they may never encounter a male person in the space, but they would still be affected.

Also, the women and girls who self-select out of the space due to it no longer being single sex are - obviously - less likely to encounter a male person there, because the space can be full of male people all day long but those women and girls will never go there to encounter them. That doesn’t mean they’re not affected - quite the contrary.

Apologies if I have misunderstood something but it seems incredibly simple?

Ummm are you saying people can’t spot who is a man or women with clothes on? Dating must be a minefield for you 😂😂😂😂

I know there are lots of different hypotheses about what motivates posters to follow this pattern.

My ‘go-to’ is righteous indignation that they are encountering opposition to what they think is an entirely reasonable position. They then escalate when their position is countered and continues to be rejected.

The nature of this pattern of posting suggests it’s the opposition that causes front, more than the substantive argument. This conclusion comes from the jumping from one point to another and not seeing any through to completion.

The nature of this pattern of posting suggests it’s the opposition that causes front, more than the substantive argument.

Particularly when they try arguing your own points back at you! No comprehension whatsoever

The claim that changing the definition of 'man' and 'woman' only affects a few people as well, as opposed to.... all men and women.

I love that claim that categorisation of the sexes doesn’t impact people generally. But hey, good to know that there are people out there who cannot correct identify the sex of humans and doesn’t have any reason to be concerned about male people in general.

There are 3 phases. Transwomen used be played by men - sometimes as comedy, sometimes sympathetically, but always recognisable as their true sex (Some Like it Hot, Crocodile Dundee, Priscilla).

Then there was a rapid shift to them being played by women, usually glamorous ones certainly feminine ones (Corrie, Ugly Betty, Gray's Anatomy).

More recently, it because cultural appropriation/erasure for trans characters to be 'taken away' by non trans actors. So trans characters were played by trans actors - but always post-lots-of-treatment, heavily made up, carefully lit ones so they look as convincing as possible; never the sort we see on protests, for some reason.

I don't remember any transmen featuring before phase 3.

For 'it because ', please read 'it became'.

And on reflection, Some LIke it Hot is drag not trans, but the same rules were applied- see also Tootsie, Victor/Victoria.

I haven't had time to come back to this thread since it first started, and was really interested to see how it work help put in one place the various events, ie actual incidents, whether through law, education, entertainment, the trans agenda took hold.

But it seems to have become yet another thread where the same arguements are had over and over again.

Back on page 2 I referred to earlier threads ie more than a few years ago, where there was lots of information posted about how informal networks help TRAs infiltrate into positions of influence. I tried search to bring this thread up convinced that Edward Lord (City Corporation) was one of the behind the scenes link but nothing came up.

But the earlier post (sorry forgot to note name of poster) who talked about working at the EHRC describes exactly what happened and how we got were we are today.

Whether through informal personal networks or actual campaigning groups, they were persistent, professional (ie knew the ropes in terms of corporate organising and lobbying) and were convincing. And importantly as men have always have, have the time to socially network to gain influence and friends in high places.

Whether a group of women, or network of women, operating in that way would have had the same impact I dont know. But the TRA agenda is able to function because it feeds off and embelishes the MRA culture that we still have.

Although lets not forget women were part of helping this linked network. What used to be called the NCCL, now Liberty, had a position that for instance it was discriminatory for WLM groups to be women only. Again another political group informed and influenced by queer politics thriving in universities. Not forgetting that the NCCL not only thought women only group discriminataed against men, but thought it wasn't fair to tell men they couldn't have sexual relationships with young boys. And some who worked at NCCL went on to become Labour politicians.

So when finalising the EA to allow for the GRA what may have been to some innocent stooges creating the concept of "legal women" was in the mind of those who held to their queer politics, that it was only stage one to a further goal.

Although the kick (re) start to feminist activism that the consultation on making the GRA closer to self id has left a legacy of groups like Sex Matters, it hasn't as a whole galvanised women in the population to become more militant. The fightback has by and large come down to individual women taking a stand in their place of work or sport.

And this is down as much as to anything else to how the media does or doesnot report on any issues.

Just as a PP referred to 80s feminism as getting women into professions, this wasn't what feminist activists were saying. This was the media repackaging feminism to say equality was about women starting to behave like men, from ladettes through to the super woman CEO.

When this turned out to not be that satisfying for women, of course women got the blame. ie "feminism failed me", whilst in fact feminists were trying to hang on to women's studies in universities and not have them over thrown by gender studies, and at the grass roots level trying to women's refuges and rape crisis centres funded and become a permenant part of social provision.

In the end whether you call it the impact of queer politics or a male centred view of the world, women having rights, women being able to talk about rights is still not embedded as a core issue.

That's why its so easy for TRAs to portray TW as the vicitms and women as the oppressor.

"So back to my point - your suggestion that the 0.5% prevalence rate means concern reflects moral panic is wrong. The prevalence rate has no bearing on the issue of whether female only provision (for natal females) is permissible in law."

I never said it did nor am I suggesting the law should be changed. My point has always been attention given to this matter is monumentally disproportionate to the impacts on women.

That’s fine, you’re not required to join in. We all will do as we see fit.

Oh please, no moral disgust from the GC movement? Just who's routinely demonising & dehumanising trans women as mentally ill predatory sex pests….but not trans men? 'Suddenly' being effeminate is perverse?

You're all fine with gender non conforming as long as it's not associated sex. Of course you love to pretend this is all about preventing patriarchal stereotypes but the real issue is gender non conforming women feeling 'left out' like a teenager would a perceived group snub that's probably also underpinned my deep seated misandry. 'How dare you associate my behaviour to men even if it's aligned with their typical behaviour'. You think you can make that association go away by forcing a biological limitation on words? 'If we get them to stop saying the words then they will stop noticing we are just like men'.

If you guys were the slightest bit genuine about wanting to prevent sex stereotypes its the interchangeability between the sexes that trans people point to that you would support but it's clearly not that's why you don't.

I've provided you a researched paper on gendered behaviours.

Now stop avoiding the question & tell us all how you distinguish women from men IN PRACTICE IN PERSON in social settings when you don't know for sure a person's biological sex?

Affected as in 'on the ground' affected by trans women. And it's self evident they aren't because not only are the numbers of trans women minuscule but there's no grass roots concern about them in most nations.

Oh no, not… misandry!

With my eyes.

And my ears, if I need a second opinion.

Of gametes?

Yep, I'm that good.

Or perhaps I use visible secondary characteristics.

Yep, I'm that good.

Are you? How would you know for sure that you were? Do you do follow up genetic testing? And is your 'sample size' of trans people comparable to that CIS people?

"The fallacy where one overestimates their ability due to a lack of experience is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is a cognitive bias where people with low competence in a particular area are unable to recognize their own incompetence and therefore overestimate their own abilities. Conversely, as people gain expertise, their confidence may actually decrease as they become more aware of the complexity of the subject."

Yes, I am. And simply 'being trans' doesn't alter bones, so that doesn't require a separate sample. Surgery and hormones can alter some markers, but not all.

Now go bother another anatomist - try Alice Roberts, she's more open to forgetting what she's learnt.

Are you seriously suggesting there aren't women with larger frames than the average man or there aren't men with smaller frames than the average woman?

Seems the 'biology is real' peoples are conveniently inconsistent when it comes to biological human diversity….

We use our eyes and ears. I know you are upset women won’t say men can become women if they want to, but I think that’s something you need to work on. Coming here scolding women is not working. Have you not realised that yet? If you really want to help transpeople, why not work on campaigning for more unisex spaces or better healthcare? This is not a productive use of your time.

Look mate. The word you're getting is no. Men are not women and never will be. Humans cannot change sex. Men are not allowed in female spaces. Doesn’t matter if it’s 1 or 10000. Women are saying no. It’s a complete sentence. No means no.

The exclusion of males from single sex provision applies to all males, it doesn’t matter if they look lovely, nasty, tiny, huge, like a women, gay, straight, weak or strong. The criteria for exclusion is being male. If someone is male, the answer is no.

Female only provision is designed to deliver a solution for females, not the entire population. Where others also need solutions, these need to be found without denying female’s theirs.

I think that even Alice Roberts would struggle to argue that there is no difference between male and female skulls and male and female pelvises.

You're all fine with gender non conforming as long as it's not associated sex.

What is "associated sex"? I've not come across that term before.