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?

Where the non conforming behaviours are more associated to the opposite sex.

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

Not on this thread, you haven't. If you're going to continue making stuff up that's fine but don't rant about it if people point out untruths.

As far as I can tell from your rather inconsistent and contradictory posting, you believe that (quoting you):

• Whilst males & females have distinctive biological functions that result in on average distinctive behaviours, behaviours also overlap

• behaviour is a sex distinction. [I assume you mean by this that there is behaviour that is distinct between the sexes and/or you can use a person's behaviour to determine which sex they are]

• I said 'sex' was bi/multimodal [" more expansive definition of sex is bimodal—with most individuals falling within one of two peaks of a trait distribution. ] & that it was a scientific consensus amongst biologists. Are you seriously suggesting that ‘sex’ doesn't comprise of multiple traits, with variable distributions? That individuals don't possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology, and social roles?

• by conflating the sexual reproductive system with sex traits. They aren't as mutually exclusive as you would wish them to be.

• Again, no one is suggesting the reproductive system isn't binary only sex traits aren't

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

And you also think that I have some system where I don't know people's sex when meeting them, so I use their behaviour to tell, and would also find out this person's sex to be able to check whether their behaviour DID match their sex (some imagined list of behaviours that I'm not privy to). I don't.

I can't think of any situation where I haven't known someone's sex in real life. I gave you specific examples of behaviours that would not tell me whether someone was male or female. I told you that not knowing someone's sex would not even allow me to start up any such system, because.... it requires knowing someone's sex to authenticate. Sorry, I thought this was all obvious but I've had to explain it repeatedly now - if there's something you still don't understand having read this, please ask specifically and I can help. If you just continue asking me what my system is I can't really illuminate any more than I have. It kind of seems like you're asking me what my unchecked guesses would be - is that it? If you want to know that I can certainly posit something but is that what you're actually trying to find out?

You've been asked repeatedly for a single example of a single behaviour - the thing you've been posting about for most of this thread - that would belong on a list of 'male' behaviours or 'female' behaviours and you can't think of one.
Yet you still continue to fervently believe that there are some.

Such as.....??
I don't tend to associate behaviours with sex, not generally, so when you use the passive 'are associated to' I don't know who is doing the associating. Presuming you're aware of the associated links, this is the thing I'm trying to get out from you.

Is it diplomacy? Friendliness? Having authority on how to load the dishwasher? Punching something? Punching someone? Playing football (UK)? Playing football (US?) Being good at visuo-spatial awareness? Confidence? Name-dropping? Not indicating at roundabouts?

Are you basically just trying to say there are 'masculine' and 'feminine' behaviours? Because if so, sure, that's an easy short-hand, but men aren't 'people who exhibit masculine behaviours', are they? They are people who are male.

Right, I've got a day's work to do so why not have a think, order your thoughts into an coherent position where they say what it is you think about behaviours and sex, with specific examples. If you're still going round in circles when I look back I'll know you're just mucking about.

It all comes down to the male gaze, porn soaked version of what men think women do, isn't it? You've still not given any example of what you mean by 'non conforming behaviours more associated to the opposite sex' because it'll all be shite like spinny skirts, make up, giggling and pillow fights and all the women on here will just say 'eh, no'.

Even if a behaviour is more associated with men, if a woman behaves in a way that is associated with men, it just demonstrates that the behaviour trait also exists in women, not that women who have this trait are men, and vice versa.

A meaningful exchange of ideas would be helped if you could be more concrete / less abstract.

Which gender non conforming behaviours do you anticipate posters might accept or reject?

I can’t think of a behaviour that I think of as unacceptable for one group but acceptable for others. Even if someone lacks capacity, I would still consider an unacceptable behaviour unacceptable. The difference would be in how it should be responded to.

Sorry, one last thing.. now you have clarified your meaning, your sentence doesn't make sense.

We are happy with GNC people [people displaying behaviours that are commonly associated with the opposite sex] except where these are behaviours that are associated with the opposite sex.
What?

"I've provided you a researched paper on gendered behaviours.
Not on this thread, you haven't. If you're going to continue making stuff up that's fine but don't rant about it if people point out untruths."

You must have 'missed' this post:

"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/274956064GenderDifferencesinPersonalityandSocialBehavior
Still waiting for your answer to my question btw."

"As far as I can tell from your rather inconsistent and contradictory posting, you believe that (quoting you):

Whilst males & females have distinctive biological functions that result in on average distinctive behaviours, behaviours also overlap"

Males & females have on average group behavioural differences as the above paper refers to. But as personality traits are shared amongst the sexes means that individuals may not align with the average behavioural traits of their group for example women are less associated to violent behaviours than men but some women are violent.

"behaviour is a sex distinction. [I assume you mean by this that there is behaviour that is distinct between the sexes and/or you can use a person's behaviour to determine which sex they are]"

In practice we associate expressed behaviours to sex as in social settings where we usually assume sex based on typical associations of exterior presentation to males or females when we don't know (strangers) a person's biological sex traits. Hence the term 'gender being socially constructed. So my point in asking you how you distinguish males from females in social settings is to point to the fact we don't use biological sex to decide whether a person is male or female but other cues related to expressed behaviour IE clothing, hair, morphological features etc.

"You've been asked repeatedly for a single example of a single behaviour - the thing you've been posting about for most of this thread - that would belong on a list of 'male' behaviours or 'female' behaviours and you can't think of one.
Yet you still continue to fervently believe that there are some."

See attached paper I already provided. And I never said behaviours belonged exclusively to males or females rather there were on average differences.

Exactly. Any model I had for ascertaining sex from behaviour would fail rather quickly because of that. That's why I'm curious about the assertion that everyone "routinely" forms one, and that it's a useful model. Maybe less data-literate people are happy with such a "guessing" model, I don't know.

I doubt that many posters on this board wear spinny skirts on engage in pillow fights, I also doubt they would give a toss about others doing this.

I think most posters have little interest in other’s clothes, mannerisms and past times.

The main push back relates to hyper sexualised behaviour (including dress) in settings where others aren’t consenting to be exposed to sexualised behaviour. Even here, I think the expectations aren’t sex specific, but apply to all.

we don't use biological sex to decide whether a person is male or female but other cues related to expressed behaviour

And how do you ascertain whether you've been correct in your decision? @Howseitgoin

Seriously?

Have you ever clapped eyes on a butch female? Or are we still pretending men on average don't present that way 'to be kind'?

"porn soaked version of what men think"

At the heart of gender critical ideology is a deep seated resentment of expressions of femininity…

Are you suggesting women who enthusiastically embrace such attire are porn soaked or have 'internalised misogyny? That women are hapless robots is classic MRA/Incel rhetoric.

Um, I'm not in the habit of conducting a forensic dig of my waitress/dentist/cleaner/garbage man/postie…

So - just to be clear - you have a list of behaviours that you use to guess sex, that you can't give a single example of, and you have no way of knowing whether it's ever accurately predicted someone's sex?

I mean.... why?

But 'sex' in essence is about distinctions. And on average differences qualify as distinctions. Does that make a biological man a biological woman if he is overly effeminate & presents that way socially? No, but he is more socially associated to women. And if for that reason he identifies more with women & as such wants to be treated as more 'womanly' than 'manly' that's not illogical given the social distinctions.

You are either not reading/comprehending my posts or trolling so i'm not going to further engage with you.

That take is bonkers.

I have no issue with males or females wearing clothes that are coded as masculine or feminine. It makes no difference to me, and I struggle to see how it makes a difference to others. Objections usually come from those with socially conservative views.

Many females, like me, object to expectations that we should present in ways that are coded as ‘feminine’ because we are female. We do not object to anyone presenting themselves in feminine coded ways.

I would love it if males and females, in equal measure wore masculine and feminine coded clothing. Overtime, they would lose their coding and just be considered clothes - happy days!

Is that your hope too, Howse?

Oh Doctor, could you advise this person on what contraception they can use.
Sure - are they bossy?
Um, not sure. They were a bit short with me on the phone.
Hmm. Was it a 'strong leader' kind of bossiness or more the 'little bit of power going to their heads" bossiness? Let's pick one so we know what to advise.

howse sits back on their luxury yacht paid for by the sale of the Marvellous Magical Sometimes-Correct Biology Diviner model

Dude, you are the epitome of an MRA/incel.

Seriously, your posting on this thread and others could be used as textbook examples of red flag/big old siren going off incel behaviour.

DARVO and gender ideology just go hand in hand, don't they?

And have you given any examples yet of the behaviours you continually refer to?

Or not?

Because if your entire argument hinges on it, it's starting to look increasingly and glaringly obvious that you haven't yet.

I would love it if males and females, in equal measure wore masculine and feminine coded clothing. Overtime, they would lose their coding and just be considered clothes - happy days!
Is that your hope too, Howse?

No absolutely not. Because you are incorrectly assuming that peoples choices aren't organically formed. This is the inherent weakness of gender critical ideology where they only view the world via patriarchal influences. I'm not saying those expectations don't exist but that doesn't mean other motivations don't of which the most powerful one does: Evolutionary biology. Let's not forget the underpinnings of survival is procreation that shock horror means upping the attractiveness factor. This is all to say that unless humans undergo some monumental transformational biological change that doesn't require procreation then you can look forward to them emphasising masculinity & femininity…& loving it till the cows come home.

LOL 😂

🤣

‘But 'sex' in essence is about distinctions’ - sex is the label given to describe a category within which the human race can be divided into male or female according to reproductive roles.

‘And on average differences qualify as distinctions’ - this is incoherent.

‘Does that make a biological man a biological woman if he is overly effeminate & presents that way socially? No, but he is more socially associated to women’ - there’s no ‘more or less’ ‘associated to women. You are either male (boy/man) or female (girl/woman).

‘…..he identifies more with women & as such wants to be treated as more 'womanly' than 'manly'’ - most posters on this board want to be treated and respected as human beings, not as ‘women’. Our experience of being treated like ‘women’ involves being paid less, expected to do domestic tasks, and being sexualised.

At the heart of gender critical ideology is a deep seated resentment of expressions of femininity…

I'm still laughing at this. 'Deep seated resentment of expressions of femininity'

Out of interest, what do you consider to be 'expressions of femininity'?

And remember now, you are speaking to women here. Not porn soaked men.

Blimey, you really think that the way people dress and cut their hair is ‘organically formed’ and part of evolutionary biology. You have a lot more in common with the MAGA tribe than with me!