A space for respectful dialogue about sex, gender and diversity

[Tandora]

This is a thread for posters who want to talk and share a diverse range of opinions about sex, gender, being gender non-conforming and/or trans, and public policy. It is to learn from each other; to engage in a productive exchange, and to hear different sides of the story.

It is not a space for bullying and insults. Please do not join if your intention is to control the conversation and undermine those who disagree with you.

We could simplify the dialogue somewhat if we all stopped pandering to the made up terms trans and cis and used real and pretend as prefixes instead.

This would also help clarify that trans women are a subset of men NOT women.

I haven't read all of the thread yet, but it's a good idea. One of my biggest frustrations with everything going on in the world at the minute is that it's all become so binary - there is no nuance any more, so it is a pleasant surprise to see people engaging without throwing insults around.

Your post that I have quoted @Tandora - sums up, in part at least, why I am GC (I posted what follows on another thread a few months ago and am copying it to here as it sums up my views....and I can't be bothered to type it all out again)

Yes gender and sex are two different things, but it is a complex combination of both of those things that makes a 'woman'. From the day we are born and observed as male or female from our secondary sex characteristics, we are slotted into the boy or girl gender box.

Even if our parents are enlightened and know that it doesn't matter one bit if a boy like to wear dresses and play with dolls or a girl likes to wear boys clothes, play with cars and get muddy, we are still boxed in by wider societies expectations and reactions to that.

For women and girls the formative experiences that come from that - the casual sexism, lack of opportunity, medical ignorance, abuse, religious oppression all have a huge impact - and then comes puberty with the changing body leading to increased leering from boys and men and the scary bleeding which is ridiculously still so taboo (and for women and girls in some countries, deadly)!
Boys and men have their own versions of all of that.

That means no matter how much a female identifies as whatever societies version of 'man' is and no matter how much a man identifies as whatever societies version of a 'woman' is, they can never be those things because they simply do not have the complex experiences that go into creating those identities from birth.

Single sex spaces are important where physical sex is an issue - prisons and sports due to differences in strength and bodies, rape crisis centres because of the trauma elements of being raped by someone who is male bodied and changing rooms and toilets because of the risk to females when so many male bodied people still think it is ok to leer at and assault people who are female bodied (for me personally, I'm not bothered by toilets so much, or changing rooms as long as there are cubicles - but that's just my personal red line - I recognise that other women are bothered by this).

For people who are born and observed as male or female at birth and who then go through the puberty relating to that observed sex, there should be absolutely no debate whatsoever as to whether they can enter those spaces designed for the opposite sex.

For those with DSD's like Imane Khalif, I think the argument is much more nuanced (and I don't agree with people who call her a man). She was born with female secondary sex characteristics, observed female at birth and brought up female in a muslim country. She would have had all of the same formative experiences as any other girl, with her DSD only being identified at puberty (if at all before she was tested as part of her sporting career).

I do believe that with the DSD being identified, she shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports - mostly due to the safety aspect (which is a shame, but no different to someone who has to give up their sport for any other health reason) but as long as she continues to want to identify as a woman, I personally have no issue with that - because having been brought up as a girl, and having those secondary sex characteristics, she will have an innate understanding of what that means, even without female puberty.

Beyond those with DSDs (who have consistently said they do not want to be used a pawn by either side in this debate), the issue with the 'trans' community is that it is too wide an umbrella which has led to a loss of nuance and extreme entrenched positions on both sides.

There are people who are genuinely trans - and by that I mean have body dysmorphia so severe that their doctors think the only way for them to be well is to live as the opposite sex, there should be discussions around how they can access spaces that allow them to feel safe - and before all of this became such an issue, there was quiet acceptance of those people in toilets and changing rooms. They are not women, they know they are not women, but they are just trying their best to live their lives (Debbie Hayton for example - and I have known a couple of people who would fit into this in real life).

When men who wanted to claim to be women for other reasons started to adopt the trans label - that is where the issues started - from the worst case scenarios of men doing it to access sensitive female spaces like prisons or escape more severe punishments (Isla Bryson), to those who simply have a fetish and like to dress in women's clothes and go by traditionally female names but do not have genuine body dysmorphia and do not even attempt to live fully as women (Jamie Wallis, Eddie Izzard).

Those people are not women, no matter what clothes they wear or name they go by. Not only did they go through 'boy' childhoods and male puberty, they have spent large portions of their adulthood as men. They do not have either the physical elements nor have they ever experienced the societal and cultural elements of womanhood which is why they shouldn't be accepted as 'women'.

I had a hell of a lot of respect for Eddie Izzard when he was openly a transvestite, before all of the 'girl mode' / 'boy mode' / Suzie nonsense started. I adored the fact that he wore skirts, dresses and makeup, breaking down the gender stereotypes and sticking his finger up to toxic masculinity.

Men like him could be such a force for good in the world, breaking down harmful stereotypes, showing the world that it doesn't matter what you wear or even call yourself, what matters is who you are, but instead they choose to go down the regressive route and embed those harmful stereotypes even further.

More of those men need to take a leaf out the book of the men from Strictly. Nikita Kuzmin and Vito Koppola - both incredibly masculine, straight (or maybe bi), but neither have a problem with wearing 'women's' clothes or dancing intimately with other men. Similarly gay and arguably more effeminate men like Layton Williams and Johanas Radebe look particularly fabulous in 'womens' clothes - but they are all men, don't try to claim to be women and they are bloody fabulous for it!

Wear what you want to wear, use whatever name you want to use, but don't try and claim to be something that you are not and can have absolutely no concept of.

• You want to wear dresses and make-up and call yourself Jane, go for it! You want spaces where you can go so that you do not have to use 'mens' toilets or changing rooms, fight for that third space and I'll be right there fighting with you.
• You need rape crisis centres but don't want to go to a men's group session - no problem, work to get specialist 1-2-1 or trans group therapy made more widely available.
• Want to play sport, but not in the men's category? Again, fight for an 'open' or third category to be set up.

Just respect that until society sorts itself out and stamps out sex based violence and regressive stereotypes and moves away from patriarchy and religious oppression, women will need single sex spaces.

If as much effort had been put into all of the above, instead of trying to break down the hard fought for rights and spaces created for women and girls, society would be a much nicer and fairer place and the toxic, vile, extreme right, would have much less ammunition to use in gaining their power.

I would consider this thread considerably more respectful if you would answer carefully considered and phrased questions that have been put to you multiple times Tandora.

I will try again in case you missed or did not understand the question.

In a world where the thing you have called I think something like psychological aspects of sex or a "cognition" of sex, and others call mind-sex or gender, is seen as separate to bodies and separate to sex-stereotypes, how does a child learn the meaning of the word woman in order to ascertain that the conviction they are feeling should be associated with the word "woman" and not the word "man".

Can you give us an example of when we would need a space that was for women and trans women or men with a female identity.

Surely we should live in a mixed sex society except very occasionally when we need to separate by biological sex.

Any example.

Thanks for expressing your feelings and criticism in a respectful way.

All I can tell you is that this isn't true. If I were trying to avoid this subject I wouldn't be here posting. My interactions are in good faith. I want to build dialogue and understanding.

I appreciate people who express express themselves with decency and integrity even if I disagree with them.

My best hope is that we can continue to speak to each other without having bad intentions ourselves or assuming bad intentions of each other.

I notice that you have used “in my opinion” and “I believe” to preface your own outright rejection of other people’s views and experiences, so I’m going to guess that you consider it ‘respectful’ to use these phrases - I’ll follow your lead on how to be respectful here. You should be aware that, still following your example of how to be ‘respectful’, I will likely ignore anything you respond to this with…but, let’s face it, the only reply I’m likely to get is one telling me off for not being respectful, or accusing me of a personal attack.

In my opinion you can only be a trans woman if you have male biology, you can only be a trans man if you have female biology. In many spaces sex matters much more than gender.

I believe that ‘sex’ relates to biology. ‘Gender’ relates to a social construct: stereotypes relating to clothing, behaviour, social roles etc. Single-sex spaces do not exist to accommodate ‘gender identity’, they exist to facilitate dignity and safety by accommodating differences in biology.

In my opinion, if you want to break down binary thinking, leaning into stereotypes that reinforce a binary are a spectacularly stupid way to go about it.

It is my opinion that refusing to engage with the lived experience of women who have very real, valid, trauma-based reasons for needing single-sex spaces is disrespectful and lacking in empathy, and anybody who can’t understand this shouldn’t preach to others about what is and isn’t ‘respectful’ communication. Additionally, asking for “diversity of opinions” then telling people they are “wrong” does not invite diversity; it just creates a platform for you to share your own views and shut down people who feel differently.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? And then you follow the case of Sandie Peggie.

Thanks so much for your nuanced and thoughtful post.

One more: do you recognise that whatever trans is, some people mistakenly think they are trans, and some people lie about being trans.

Sex isn’t diverse

even DSD are associated usually with one of the two sexes. Someone who people think must be female due to outward appearance but can provide sperm but no egg are biologically male

Some are unfortunately infertile and therefore sex is trickier ? Sadder ? because they are lacking / like having no eyes - it’s a type of disability.

so - should make eggs == female, sperm == male

even in the most difficult of cases doctors seem to know what category people fall in

( along with many others I do think there is one form of DSD where a biological male is likely to live their entire life as both infertile and as a woman and that’s ok but they should know what disorder they have an when they need to declare it

I mean humans have 2 legs and we don’t redefine humans edit as anything other than bipedal - to account for those who don’t .

I believe, based on the evidence, that this is rare, but I can't say that it doesn't happen. Of course it must, in the same way that people lie about being disabled, people lie about being sick, people lie about being neurodivergent and others. People can also be mistaken about these things too.

Please stop telling us how we need to feel so we can fit into the way you wish to “ understand”.

I appreciate people who express express themselves with decency and integrity even if I disagree with them.'

Could I please request then that you don't change the words of the questions you are asked when you answer them, or turn them into different questions?
Arguing against a position that wasn't the argument made is the straw man fallacy.

Would you mind explaining - with specifics - what you mean by 'trans people are all gender non-conforming'? What is an example of a way that a trans woman behaves/acts/thinks/appears that is at odds with being a woman?

OK, so to come back to a previous point.

Earlier you suggested that we could have different spaces for:

• everyone
• biological women
• biological women + trans people
• trans people
• biological men
• biological men + trans people

Presumably this is your solution for how society can be inclusive of both trans people and women who need single sex spaces.

Fine, great.

However, how do you see this working in practice?

That's already six different categories and it doesn't even include accessible spaces.

When it comes to spaces which are segregated according to sex, we currently have "male", "female" and "accessible", which is usually a unisex, single user space. This setup is already inclusive of everyone, because everyone is either male or female, and the only people who actually cannot use the male or female spaces are people who need accessible spaces. If we accept that able bodied trans people cannot use the spaces for members of their own sex, and that they should not use accessible spaces, the obvious solution appears to be to create some additional single user spaces, similar to the accessible spaces but without needing to be set up for people with mobility issues.

Why do we also need "women + trans people" and "men + trans people"? As far as I can tell this would just be taking floor space away from facilities most people are happy to use and dedicating it to a much smaller group, for no apparent reason. The result, as ever, would be less toilet and changing room provision for women, who are already under catered for.

When it comes to groups and associations, the need for single sex provision is less evident. Rape crisis group? Yes, I can see the need. Knitting club? Not so much. Organisations such as the WI and Girl Guides? Tricky.

For rape crisis groups, it seems to me that it would be relatively simple to organise separate groups for women, men and trans people.

For organisations such as the WI and the Girl Guides, I think you can make arguments both for and against such single sex groups existing. But what is clear to me is that if a woman or girl has gone out of her way to join a female only group, despite the plethora of mixed sex alternatives, it is because she specifically wants a male-free environment. Making that group "women + trans" is going to defeat the point of it existing for many of those women and girls.

I'm sure there are trans only groups in addition to the many LGBTQ+ groups we know exist. Nobody has an issue with that.

But if trans people who were born male want to socialise with women, why can't they do so in a mixed sex group? Why can't they join their local am dram society or pub quiz team? They do not need to join female only organisations in order to socialise with women.

And also (sorry but I like to be clear)
Quite the reverse - such perspectives produce a (false) hierarchy where women will always be seen as secondary and as inferior to men.

Just checking that you mean 'female people' and 'male people' here when you say women and men here? Or do you mean 'people of either sex' in both instances (I know that wouldn't make logical sense)?

How do I tell a man who lies when he lies and says he's a woman from a man who simply lies and says he's a woman?

So, why are you here?

This implies that you think women are a sort of default homogenous background who can only be improved by adding more variety, as opposed to one of these diverse groups with a valid identity in their own right?

”I don’t think it serves women or feminism to be so obsessed/ invested in emphasising the fixed and binary nature of sex. Such perspectives produce a false hierarchy where women will always be seen as secondary and inferior to men”

So are you saying that the only way women will ever be seen as equal to men is if we allow the definition of what a woman is to include men?

As your definition of "trans" excludes the middle aged cross dressers who get a thrill out of invading female spaces it's unsurprising that you think bad faith actors adopting a "trans" persona happens rarely.

Surely the idea is that trans people are all gender conforming because they are conforming to their idea of the gender they identify as? Ie a trans woman who is wearing a dress and make up is conforming with their perceived gender?

If sex and gender are different things [which we keep being told they are], then ‘gender non-confirming’ is meaningless as a term? Shouldn’t we be using ‘sex-based stereotype non-conforming’? This latter covers tomboys, butch lesbians and boys who enjoy playing with make up and feminine clothing, or even any man or woman in a profession usually considered the sole preserve of the opposite sex?

@potpourree

Could I please request then that you don't change the words of the questions you are asked when you answer them, or turn them into different questions?

I do my best to answer questions in the best way I know how. Sometimes (well often) people ask me questions that contain inbuilt assumptions. Answering that question using the same language and directly, would require me to accept/ agree with assumptions I don't. That would be both unhelpful and dishonest.

trans people are all gender non-conforming'

Trans people are all gender non-conforming in the sense that to be trans is (definitionally) to defy conventional assumptions about sex/gender.

How are they gender non conforming if they identify as a woman? Or do you believe transwomen are men and therefore gender non conforming because they're dressing in stereotypical womans outfits?
Surely if transwomen are a type of woman in your mind then they are gender conforming? And females who don't like makeup and dresses are gender non conforming?

I think your reliance on variation or diversity is overstated.

There are only 2 sexes and with very little and very rare diversity. However, science and society have defined how these very rare differences are studied, confirmed and classified.

There is no special trans category in the way sexes are tested. I can't see this ever happening as the evidence just isn't there. When we discussed this on the other thread we found that any physical evidence for even Gender Dysphoria was poor, badly researched and uncertain.

This may change one day but it has barely started.

As a woman I don't feel secondary or inferior to men although I understand how society may try and impose this and the inequalities we still have.

Losing the separation in an attempt to address this wouldn't work in my opinion. Women would still have healthcare and maternity differences as an example. I can't personally see women benefiting from losing the emphasis on the two different sexes.

It's something Science Fiction novels have addressed but I've not been convinced that even in these imaginary worlds it benefits women.

A trans person is anyone who says that they are trans, but not including convicted rapists and murders who reflect badly on the trans community; nor men and women who mistakenly think they are trans but are wrong and will go on to detransition in the future; nor autogynephiles nor transvestic fetishists even though that is at least half of all men who meaninglessly claim to be women are one or the other; nor predators who are pretending to be trans to access vulnerable women and childred.