Why is sex-based language important to support sex-based rights?

[Dragonasaurus]

I think it it necessary to defend sex-based language to describe and defend sex-based rights. An interesteing discussion had ensued on a now deleted thread. I hadn’t got to the later pages, so I’m guessing posts took an unpleasant turn. Nevertheless, I think the discussion is important enough to reconvene if we all pinky promise not to be mean

My point is that even if Ivy wasn't blatantly lying when calling themselves "female", they are hugely terfy for thinking that being female would make them a woman.

A weird thing to lie about as it outs them as thinking women are female!

If you engage in the kind enablement of 'yes', you will eventually reach the point of having to say 'no'. And it will then be much harder, because you have already begun the conversation and framed it from position of submission to and adoption of the stance in which 'yes' is not a kind enablement with reasonable limits, but something real.

It will not at that point be convenient nor welcome for you to get up from your knees and reclaim equality in the conversation.

You then find yourself in the position not of women being humans of equality, but instead trying to negotiate how much is fair to men for women to be permitted to retain. And you have laid the ground on which this sounds reasonable.

The nuance offered this morning (or more probably last night) was whether or not you would use ‘trans woman’, ‘trans man’, ‘transwoman’, ‘transman’ or whether these descriptions were a step too far as they include a reference to that person as the sex they are not.

I have, so far, been willing to use ‘transwoman’ and ‘transman’ (specifically without the space), but the discussion has made me reconsider. After all, saying a transwoman cannot use female facilities (etc) puts all the emphasis on the trans element, but the whole point is not that the person is trans, but that he is male. I’m going to make more use of ‘trans identified male’ and see if that leads to more clarity

Good thread - what happened with the other one to get it deleted?

I think it’s fantastic that Naomi Cunningham is totally holding the line in court that men are men. And that she’s persuading judges that it’s biased to require preferred pronouns.

I understand your point and that it is contradictory. However, the men who use that argument never think it though at all...

"After all, saying a transwoman cannot use female facilities (etc) puts all the emphasis on the trans element, but the whole point is not that the person is trans, but that he is male."

I found myself at this point a few years ago. I found myself on the back foot until I started to use 'male person' because that also makes the sex category that is a protected characteristic clearer to defend. I know that it likely annoys many people, but to me it just keeps driving home that it is all about the person being male. Not their transgender status.

And it made discussing single sex provisions much clearer. I think we each find our terminology that works for us to keep it clear in our mind.

Yes, I've very much appreciated the judges who have been clear that people's language choices are their own, which sustains impartiality and equality, and avoids tying the hands of one group while handing greater power over them, and the control over framing of all things, to another.

"In many Olympic disciplines the gap in performance is bigger between first and eighth in a single sex event than it is between the first man and the first woman."

If that "first woman" is male, then it wouldn't be surprising.

Wish I knew. I was reading up to page 5ish and had to go out. Missed the drama, there didn't seem to be anything reportable up to then. Anyone?

I hadn’t read all of it. There had been that poster who on the first page told everyone they were obsessed with genitals etc and it went from there with them then making the usual claims of not being able to post without hostile reaction. In other words, the DARVO move of attacking then claiming that they were attacked.

Was it a (seeming) new name or a regular? Saying no names obvs.

Any discussion on sex-based language cannot omit Barraker’s Rohypnol analogy:

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

I don’t know eresh. Not one I recognised in any case.

A regular on a lot of other boards with over 2000 posts, but only seems to have posted on this one Fem Sex and Gender thread. Diving straight in with You Are Genitally Obsessed! and "Rapists going to rape, not one single woman will be safe due to language."

I'm telt.

"What are your pronouns?"

"My pronouns?" The answer is in my response – my pronouns are 'I, me, my, myself, mine'. 'He, him, his, himself, his' or 'she, her, her, herself, hers' or even 'they, them, their, themselves, theirs' are the pronouns of the person using them, not the person being referred to. And we don't have any real choice about how people refer to us; they will generally use conventional ones, semi-automatically, subconsciously. It has taken a conscious decision to use "preferred" pronouns, either out of (misplaced) kindness, or as the result of coercion.

After a while, with a particular person, it is possible for identity-based pronouns to become the default subconscious choice, so the mental load of choosing to use them is not always much of a burden. But particularly when that person is emotionally important to us, there can be a dissonance, an awareness that we are not being truthful.

For me, when I was first struggling with how to relate to my newly trans-identifying son, that cognitive dissonance was extremely painful. I grappled with the ethics of going along with it, and eventually came to two conclusions:

• it is too painful to use feminine pronouns; that denies my son, and what I know to be true about him, and his whole life pre-trans; I cannot do that
• it is affirming him in a lie or a delusion, and giving him my approval would cement his 'identity'.

I have since discovered that this also applies to other people I know. The closer I am to someone emotionally, the more it grates to use identity-based pronouns, even when they are the ones I am used to.

Language is so important and we need to use correct language around sex based rights.

single sex spaces are exactly that.

I was so pleased that it's finally being allowed in court when discussing single sex spaces that biological terms are being used. Makes the issue much clearer

🙄

So true!