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.

Behold! A man telling women what they may think, read, and write.

no one is piling on. Apart from the TRA troll who got deleted, everyone has been respectful. Why is women asking questions a pile on? Surely if you have a viewpoint, youre perfectly willing to defend it here. I think posters are most peeved about there being no actual two way discussion, questions never answered and being told batshit stuff like there aren’t two sexes, TW are not male and OP scolding everyone who points this out. If you have a viewpoint in the subject, post away. It’s a discussion forum. It’s what it’s here for. You can’t then get upset at posters responding with questions and challenges to your views. Abd that’s a general you. Not you personally.

I have to say I find your post hard to follow. Here is one bit though...

"But we talk about women's elite sports, and we support the argument that paying women less for their success than men is discrimination.
It's a bit hypocritical then isn't it, to say that 13 year olds (who are at a similar disadvantage against adult men) should not be able to participate, or that they should not have a league of their own or be paid just as much for their international success."

Elite sportsmen often earn massive money, but it is 100% down to the cold hard fact that large audiences generate large revenues and large advertizing and sponsorship revenues to support the massive money being paid.

Elite sportswomen often earn decidedly pitiful money (either in absolute or relative terms, or both) and that is down the the lower audience size. The lower audience size is significantly down to history (for example decades of the FA deliberately trying to destroy women's football which had massive crowds in the 1920s / 30s IIRC).

I think everyone sensible is in favour of taking active measures to elevate women's sports. I am not sure very many people support pay equality between - say - male and female PL footballers in the UK. The taxpayer is certainly not going to start subsidizing top female players wages by £100k per week each, and I am not sure that we have widespread support for "taxing" the men's game - say - 45% of it's revenues so that those can be used to subsidize the female game and

In my view most people see that there is a balance to be had between allowing the market to set footballer wages with no intervention to support women, and an attempt at equality of outcome right now.

The idea that a 13 year old girl who is the best in her age group (ie the best of all 13 year old girls) should be paid the same as the best man (ie the best of all adult males, in practice aged 18-40, say) would seem rather naive.

would you not accept that women are fairly poor at assessing risk, usually massively overestimating, and therefore our perceptions alone are a poor basis for determining societal rules??

Well no. Passionately not. Because that's the same misogynistic reasoning as to why women couldn't own property, or refuse sex by force within a marriage: that the poor little inferior sausages just are pretty poor at running their own lives and need men to make decisions for them. This is also binary sex based thinking, isn't it? So you're not buying into at all that some men are women; merely that women shouldn't be permitted to escape men who want to handle them for strip searches or force them to undress, because it's good for them to be 'resilient'. Words fail really.

Middle ground

Look. The middle ground was the GRA. A very small group of men fully transitioned or in the final stages of, reasoned as being too small to impact on women, and highly misogynist in that women weren't viewed as people or even as entitled to have any say in being resources for these men. Men broke it. The SC Judgment was the final stage in years of women evidencing in court how much men have broken it because the sex class of men have men who will never treat women any better than the poster commenting above, or see them as equally human, or as entitled to not be used as required.

The SCJ explains in depth, easy to read, why no distinction can practically be made between groups of men, and why women's protections in law cannot function (or gay rights either if you don't care about women) unless all of the opposite sex are excluded from single sex spaces. And the point that no activist can register: women have rights too. Equal to those of people with trans identities. Trans is not a trump card. They are going to have to tolerate other people's access and beliefs being provided for alongside theirs, and not getting the casting vote on what they permit others to have.

The 'middle ground' now is additional gender neutral spaces alongside single sex ones. This provides additional spaces respecting that some do not want to use sex based spaces, and does not require either women to give up single sex provision or men to be forced to use men only spaces. It permits consensual mixed sex use. The women here feeling they would be happy to share with some men under some circumstances can exercise that all they like in the gender neutral spaces. How they work out which men, under what circumstances, their boundaries etc is entirely up to them, and sadly I think many of them will sooner or later have their eyes opened by experience. It is not for them to inflict their experimentation and own boundaries on women who want single sex spaces, and need them to access. And at least when (not if) some women in the mixed sex space have a horrific experience they will have another space to retreat to for access.

Not trans. Trans ally though. It'd be lovely to see some genuine debate

........ that was on page 24.

24 pages and 'when does the genuine debate start?'

It's very obvious that in activist terms 'debate' and 'discussion' and 'respectful' are more words that Humpty has sat on, and mean something very different to the activist than everyone else. As identified very early on, exactly like a court room where an activist tries to control and subordinate everyone through language rules before they even start to discuss the case, 'genuine debate' is a bunch of good girls discussing how lovely men are and how important it is for women to embrace taking their clothes off for them.

It's over. This is all pointless anyway. The law is clear, (even if Humpty will try to insist it isn't because men don't like women having inconvenient rights) and women get single sex spaces.

Tandora cannot control that.

I agree with that. It's just that I think it's important to make a distinction between two things

• a group of women and "trans women" is mixed sex because of material, physical biological fact
• such a group is illegal (for some purposes) under the equality act as it discriminates against "cis" males or whatever it is - i.e. only explicitly single SEX groupings are allowed as an exception - but this is because of human legislation

The posts I was responding to were conflating it - "why is this a mixed sex group?" "because legally it is"

I think this is something I see generally in a few arguments and wanted to mention it. For example "is biological sex real?" "yes, a judge officially ruled that it was a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society"...

But biological sex would be real even if every law in the land said it wasn't.

I just really want to stress the distinction between that opinion and believing it's not a mixed sex group, explicitly because I don't want people to say "you think such a group should be allowed to exist (e.g. for freedom of association reasons) therefore you think TWAW".

I was going to just heart this post but I want to publicly say it. This is so well expressed. Thank you.

TRA want to force team women with TW in some situations to create a class and to show that if its possible here, its possible everywhere.

It seems harmless, and a good compromise, but its needless creates a group to be used against women in other situations.

Also, why would men be excluded from a hairdressing class? In the situations where that would be necessary, it will be necessary to exclude TW, too.

“I am however (since this is apparently a.discussion thread) trying to make people think about these things from first principles and see if they hold water.”

The first principle that supports sex segregation is that male people have physical advantage over female people. Even male children have physical advantages over female children.

A male person who has gone through any part of male puberty, even early puberty, can be said to have derived advantage from testosterone that female people cannot have access too naturally.

There is no one denying discussion about alternative categories in sport within the sex class category. Many people, experts, athletes, as well as posters on MN have been asking ‘what other categories’ are needed. There are already many categories used in different sports. What new ones are needed and what will those categories do?

Many inclusive suggestions (including male people into female sports) have been modelled already and found to not prevent injury to female competitors or to mitigate male advantage. People have lazily suggested using weight or height as a category. However, sex is highly significant in those categories too. A 64kg male athlete still has advantage over a 64kg female in many sports.

I am all for discussion. Let’s have it. However, so far no poster has ever proposed a workable solution and how it is to be applied. It is usually people wishfully posting that there must be a better way while ignoring that sporting federations and all the world’s experts have turned their attention to the situation and have no solution that provides male access to female only sports categories.

Me too on all of it. Most of all, I'd like a world where we could just say 'complicated, contradictory and wonderful' and build systems round people, not the other way round.

@Tandora (and others) claims that TW are women.
Based on an implied underlying argument that biology does not matter.

@Tandora claims that women are terrible at assessing risk.
Based on an implied underlying argument that biology matters inasmuch as men are better at assessing risk than women.

This is also binary sex based thinking, isn't it? Yes and a logic fail.

It’d be great if @Tandora came back and respectfully explained why sex seems to matter in one situation but not another. Providing some evidence for the claim that women are poor at assessing risk would also be helpful.

I couldn’t sleep last night and this thread was running through head. Imagine a manager at Next clothes shop having the following conversations. C=customer X = manager.

C1. Hi, I’m deaf, I would like more flashing lights to alert me to alarms that may go off in the shop.
X. That’s reasonable, I’ll see that gets done.
C2. Hi, I’m blind, I would like every coathanger to have an audio button telling me the size, price, colour, style, fabric of the item.
X. Ooof, sounds expensive but I get where you’re coming from, let me look into it.
C3. Hi, I’m in a wheelchair, I would like all clothes rails lowered so I can access them easily, it’s discrimination otherwise.
X. Oh, errr, gosh okay hadn’t thought of that, I’ll get on it.
C4. Hi, I am ND, I would like the lights to be dimmed and music off as it’s all a bit overstimulating in here.
X. Ah, okay…
C5. Actually I’m ND and a sensation seeker, I like the stimulation!
X. Ummmm
C6. I’m from Klingon and I don’t understand the sizing/laundering instructions, can you accommodate my language on the care labels please?
X. Well the care labels are already like little phone books ruining the line of the clothing but I would hate for you to feel excluded.
C7. I have body dysmorphia, can you remove the mirrors?
C8. I’m Hindi, can you remove all the leather?
C9. I’m vegan, can you remove the wool and silk too?
By now X is running around trying to accomate everyone and satisfying no-one. Then OP comes in.
OP. I would like you to install 7 different categories of changing room and the same for toilet facilities for the trans community. That’s for those who are able bodied and NT. obviously those who aren’t will need separate provision.
X. Good luck to you. I’m off to work in Next online where I don’t have to deal with all this…

Tandora hopes to win the argument by grinding us all to death with utter bullshit over a prolonged period of time.

It's not a debate. It's a test of stamina in trying patience.

The hope is that eventually we'll all capitulate and agree just to shut up Tandora.

One narrative is -

Man adopts offensive parody of womanhood as his identity. Campaigns to end women's rights. Has success in eroding women's rights. Sees the direction of travel in terms of insane TQ+ demands over the last 10 years, knows there's going to be a pushback, seeks to position himself as a moderate pro-women voice when if fact he is still trying to justify the most disgusting incoherent anti-women ideology, albeit in a less extreme from than modern TRAs.

I believe he should be acknowedged for the good he does (some) but ultimately he pushed a disgusting extreme position and is still far too tolerant of TQ+ ideology now.

Felt the urge to explore the idea that women are worse risk assessors and came across the attached. It seems they are not worse at assessing risk but they are more risk averse, so more likely to avoid risky situations (in my head I wonder, semantically, whether this doesn’t actually make them better at risk assessing). This research suggests one of the (many) reasons for this is their perceived and actual physical vulnerability vis a vis men. If you are smaller, less fast, less strong you won’t pick a fight with a 6ft4 male, will you?

Intuitively, I would argue that women are master risk assessors, especially once they have children as they become more attuned to their surroundings and are now primed to search out potential danger. But that could be completely bollocks LOL

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/gender-differences-in-risk-assessment-why-do-women-take-fewer-risksthan-men/3386EA020D940A2805EA3785662E7832

What justification would there be to exclude long haired men from the class, or short-haired men who were planning on growing theirs and wished to learn about caring for long hair in advance of growing it?

Or alternatively we could enjoy sharing views and be happy being ourselves and thank them for the opportunity to remind ourselves that Gender Inclusive depends on a cross between the Emperors New Clothes and the Queen of Hearts in Alice In Wonderland who could believe as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast. Throw in the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, and you're about there.

Sure, inclusion is a fine thing in contexts where sex doesn't matter.

Anyone who understood the typology as explained by Ray Blanchard already knew that Debbie was AGP. So it was no surprise when he admitted it and wrote a book about it.

I know there's a school of thought that says well at least he's honest about it. But personally, I don't think being honest about fetishising women is much of a commendation.

But it was reading a highly insightful analysis of what he wrote, by a woman whose name I'm sorry I can't remember, which clinched it for me.

Debbie Hayton is a very clever man, and, in my opinion highly manipulative. The analysis of his writing showed it up in quite stark clarity.

So no, I don't think his honesty is anything other than a means to garner support, when he saw which way the wind was blowing.

And, the entire thing was clinched, I have to say, by his assertion, on this very site, that he believed breast size indicated social hierarchy. And the bigger a woman's breasts, the higher up the social hierarchy her peers would view her.

All the machinations in the world, couldn't hide that bit of porn inspired wank.

Thanks for that. I'm interested in the suggestion that women are poor at risk assessment, where it might have come.from, and who may benefit from that trope?

You say “everyone has been respectful”, but the very post above yours calls the OP a man.

That is the perfect illustration of what occurs. Asking questions - fine. Abuse, calling others names (MRA, TRA, male, abuser, abusive, misogynist, woman-hater, paedophile, idiot, dumb, low intelligence) - not so much. I’ve been called all those things by posters on this board. Yes, I have a viewpoint, but I don’t want to be abused constantly in my defence of it, and I don’t think that should be necessary.

It reeks of misogyny doesn’t it? I am aware that there is research that suggest that outdoor play - climbing frames etc - develops risk assessment skills and that the removal of such equipment from school playgrounds undermines its development. The research often looks at sex differences - ie, that boys are calmer and more placid in classroom settings when they also have access to open spaces and climbing equipment for example. I remember reading [sorry I don’t have links] that boys benefit from these activities because self confidence and the ability to self regulate [as they tend to be more physical due to physiological and hormonal differences, such as higher T] is dependent upon learning to assess risk.

But much of the research was less ‘gendered’ and spoke about the fact that encouraging safe spaces where kids could engage in risky behaviour (trampolining, outdoor activities at school or in Guides/scouts etc) led to more creativity and entrepreneurship in adulthood. The crux being that the more risk averse children are conditioned to be, the less likely they would be to try something ‘new’, and that this would impact development in STEM subjects academically and later in related careers. The research/articles I read were focused on protecting these opportunities in education, ensuring both boys and girls have access to these activities, because the long term consequences of bubblewrapping them as parents and allowing Health & Safety Regs to legislate these spaces out of schools and playgrounds would be economically significant. If I recall correctly, the suggestion was that socialisation of girls historically has meant girls lack of access to many of these risk assessing/out door/physical activities means that women have been socialised to be risk averse, rather than it being entirely innate and gendered through different perceptions of height/strength etc.

Anecdotally, once my DD had broken a bone jumping on a trampoline filled with balls and clutching a nerf gun, she actually became a more pragmatic/grounded in her risk assessment. The fear of hurting herself was removed as she had discovered that yes, it hurt like hell at the time and we had to cancel a holiday as a result, but she understood it wasn’t the worst thing in the world.

“And, the entire thing was clinched, I have to say, by his assertion, on this very site, that he believed breast size indicated social hierarchy. And the bigger a woman's breasts, the higher up the social hierarchy her peers would view her.”

This was the clincher for me too. When I read that Hayton posted this here on MN, I realised quite a bit about some of those male people who seem to be elevated to be feminist allies while still claiming they are women in any way.

Young men are more likely to die in accidents of all kinds because they have not taken risks seriously enough.

This applies to everything from driving a car, to using equipment to adventure sports.

Women are actively taught it's unacceptable for them to take risks from birth.

I remember when I decided to go on a Working Holiday Visa to Australia the number of people who made comments about safety of going alone. The majority of women went out as pairs but the blokes were much more likely to go as individuals and were not ever asked the same question. This needs to have someone to go with, means it restricts some women from even considering going.

What happened in practice was the women inevitable had a habit of falling out with each other quite quickly and went off with new friends. So it was something of a stupid argument anyway. Not only that, but the women who were in pairs seemed to take far more risks than the few lone women did because they thought because there was took of them they could engage in riskier behaviour so it didn't always equate that being by yourself was risker in its own right.

The reality was closer to going to university and I always felt the logic was equivalent to saying "oh your a girl so you can't go to university by yourself because it's not safe" and it didn't necessarily work out like that anyway because of how it altered how women assessed the same risk.

My point being is there is this social difference that is pushed on girls in terms of safety. Women have different thresholds about what they feel safe with and they alter their behaviour in a different way based on this.

It's bizarre to suddenly expect women to 'unlearn this' whilst simultaneously still repeating messaging about walking home at night and socialising on a night out.

It's observable in many other ways too. Women feel more at risk, have different risks and are risk adverse in different ways because of their physical reality and socialisation.

Boys are actively encouraged to take risks. Risk taking is regarded as 'masculine' and it's why you get more men in adventure sports.

I've been on adventure sports training courses just for women. It's been noted by governing bodies that this difference in risk taking reduces the uptake of those sports by women. When they take coaching sessions they are often put off by men in the group and the coaching style being too aggressive in terms of risk taking.

So they had realised the need for different coaching styles for men and women and that women benefitted from women only sessions because they didn't get dominated by competitive men and macho antics. Women thrived on mutual encouragement and a slower curve in risk taking to get them into the sport. This was, in part, driven by a realisation by women that they didn't have the physical strength/size to match the men and had to focus on skills to achieve rather than pure physicality. Thus actually they were making a risk assessment based on this nature gap in ability rather than being 'risk adverse', which wasn't being recognised by the sport or men in the community.

I know that this is now being adopted by several different adventure sports as a way of increasing participation by women. And it's had a positive impact.

We should be recognising all these points about risk taking because they matter.

Am rather enjoying this discussion now, though I guess it may be progressing due to mutual understandings that we are using sex-based definitions for boy and girls, and ‘gender’ as a social construct and/or relating to sex-based socialisation and roles.

I’d expect another little wave of scolding before the end, tbh.