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.

You seem to conflate the words woman and female with thoughts and gender identity as opposed to biological sex.

Women don’t think of themselves as female/woman, we know we have a biological sex as do trans women.

This point is where your ideas make no sense trying to shoe horn a commonality between all women and all trans women but not men.

There is no commonality between all women and trans women but not men.
Can you understand women do not think of themselves or understand themselves to be female they are biologically female?

I've thought about it a bit more, and it was growing horror and dismay of what's been fattening beneath your very nose being fully revealed.

I know this is going back a while,but i never suggested that the law could change anyone sex.

I said that Tandora vision of spaces for women and some men isnt legal. There isnt a legal justification for a space to be open for (using trans language) only 'cis and trans women' and exclude all other men. (And presumably, trans men, but who knows).

OP's concession, that women-only services could be permissible for specific reasons, is important, or at least stands for something important. It's not much of a concession, given that it's the law anyway, and is regarded as transphobic by true believers. But it's a signifier that OP and the rest of us are capable of describing our worldview to each other, and then coming up with solutions aimed at accommodating both worldviews.

This approach is anathema to true believers because it means acknowledging that their worldview is not necessarily true. Other religions don't face this problem, because they're capable of being practised without forcing non-believers to play along (whether they actually do so is a whole other question).

We won't change their worldview, although it's fascinating (and instructive) to try. Even so, everyone will have won, when society accepts that non-believers are neither bigoted nor deluded, and deserve accommodations to their objectively true worldview every bit as much as the believers do.

It's great that free speech exists to debate and reflect on whether change is required.
Men can ask for access to women's spaces and be told no due to sex existing; hearing the message requires listening and acceptance.
If human beings stop being different sexes then everything can become unisex.

Concessions seem to be made and withdrawn all the time. I suspect it's largely dependent upon how quickly they see their general support waning on any given thread

Please could you tell us what beliefs you hold? I am hoping that you are a mtf trans because I would like to know what they mean when they say 'I know I am a woman.' I appreciate that it may well be different for everyone, but I am genuinely curious about why they believe that their gender is not the one assigned at birth and what makes them certain that they are women.

I find Stonewall's 'we do not discuss or debate' odd, because my experience of life is that when someone is as passionate about a belief as many of those who believe they have a gender mismatch the problem isn't getting them to talk about it but stopping them doing it. It seems very strange that on something this major all that is said is 'because I know.' so I'd be so grateful if someone could tell me what it is they know.

This is where I diverge with you in my views about some trans identifying men.

I agree fully with the core elements of what you say - sex is what's important and gender absolutely doesn't matter.

I think that we also agree, to a certain point that a lot of different 'conditions' (encompassing mental health, body dysmorphia, fetishes etc) have all been placed under the trans umbrella and we are expected to treat them all the same.

Someone who needs to live 'as a women' for their mental health is completely different to someone who claims to be trans but is quite happy to present as male when it offers them an advantage or claims to be trans but only ever presents as a stereotype or parody of a woman as part of a fetish.

However, for me, there is an inherent contradiction in your use of 'woman face', at least in context you use it above about it being utterly disgusting no matter who is doing it and why.

'Woman-face' is an expression of gender, therefore by definition if gender doesn't matter, then neither does woman-face, so I can't agree that it is disgusting in any context.

The disgusting element for me is the claim that what is being worn or how hair and make-up is used, or the surgery they have had to change their body makes someone a woman.

But if you want to wear 'women's clothes', use make-up and wear your hair in a 'feminine' way And change your name to a 'girls' name, then fill your boots - as long as you are not claiming it makes you female and you are not seeking to erode women's rights.

(I actually think medical transition should be banned apart from in cases where it is deemed to be the only treatment for someone's mental health and all other options have been explored with therapy OR it is as a result of a DSD where the wrong decision was made by doctors/parents at birth)

For me, being female is more than physical bodies, genes and outward presentation. Those alone do not take account of the lived-experiences, expectations and risks that women and girls live with from the day they are born and observed as being female and no-one born and raised male with ever understand that.

That is the reason that I suspect we would also disagree over Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya. I do believe that there should be discussions about whether they should be allowed to compete in elite female sport. My own view is probably not - which would be incredibly sad for them, but no different to a promising young sportswoman who develops some other condition which prevents them from competing.

However, I will never refer to either of them as a man unless they decide to transition themselves.

They were observed female at birth, they were raised female and if they had not gone into sport, their DSDs may never have been identified and they likely would have lived their whole lives as women. They have not had a male upbringing with all the benefits (and challenges) that entails and they would have no more understanding of what it means to be male than anyone born and raised male has of being female, regardless of the Y chromosome.

That is my view at present based on everything I've read / everyone I've spoken to on both sides but I am not dogmatic in that view and it may change (in either direction) in future depending on any further understanding that I develop.

Although the OP.may have started this thread in bad faith, I agree with another PP that it does seem to have turned into an interesting discussion about different GC views.

Can you please evidence that any man "needs to live 'as a women' for their mental health"? It seems incredibly unlikely.

Can you please explain how a man can "live as" a woman any more than a cat can live as a dog?

I have no problem with gender non-conformity, but I do have a problem with able bodied people pretending to be disabled, straight men pretending to be gay, white people pretending to be black. Why is men pretending to be women different?

It is perfectly possible for a man to wear a dress and not be in womanface.

I believe hiding one's sex is inherently anti-social.

I disagree with you completely, sorry.

All good, I appreciate you taking the time to reply!

I know I'm being pedantic, but I really want to stress the difference between those two justifications.

The first and biggest reason for that is that I think it's critical to keep clear in our own minds that reality isn't defined by the law, as a general principle.

Related to that is that I explicitly want people to feel reminded that the equality act and the GRA are living pieces of legislation which can be changed by parliament at will and they are not foundational. I want people to see them as up for challenge (partially in a devil's advocate kind of way) because I think they need to be either removed totally (GRA) or significantly revised at minimum (trans parts of EA) and this should be top of mind for people and not conceded.

The second point is more personal, and it's that I, personally, for reasons unrelated to feminism, think we should interpret the "proportionate aim" provisions for having sex based groups very very broadly. I think people should be able to organise women's book clubs or hair care workshops and put flyers up about them in libraries without having to pretend it's because women are traumatised by men or whatever. I sometimes just can't be bothered having men around. I think people should be allowed to have a ladies book club plus their one gay friend (even if it deeply annoys me and I feel it changes the vibe) and it's not the government's business. So they can invite their trans woman friends if they feel like it. I'll not go, but I don't think it should be illegal.

That doesn't mean I think TWAW.

I agree with @BloominNora that this has been an interesting thread for the inter-GC discussion!

I know you weren't replying to me, hope you don't mind if I jump in...

'Woman-face' is an expression of gender, therefore by definition if gender doesn't matter, then neither does woman-face, so I can't agree that it is disgusting in any context.
Race based on skin colour is nonsense. Is blackface therefore acceptable? It's a caricature by the oppressor group of the oppressed group.

For me, being female is more than physical bodies, genes and outward presentation. Those alone do not take account of the lived-experiences, expectations and risks that women and girls live with from the day they are born and observed as being female and no-one born and raised male with ever understand that.
A stillborn baby girl who has had no experiences of anything is female. A 30-year-old non-verbal, physically incapacitated woman who has lived in care homes all her life is also female.
We may share life experiences because of our femaleness, but the only experiences which we all share are uniquely biologically female experiences. We have a lot of crap to deal with because of the way society treats us and how we ourselves are expected to behave - as Simone de Beauvoir famously said. But if we lived in a utopia without sexism and misogyny, we would still be female and have female biological experiences in common.

...I suspect we would also disagree over Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya. I do believe that there should be discussions about whether they should be allowed to compete in elite female sport. My own view is probably not - which would be incredibly sad for them, but no different to a promising young sportswoman who develops some other condition which prevents them from competing.
Semenya we know for sure has a DSD known as 46 XY, 5-ARD. The 46, XY is shorthand for male. 5-ARD refers to an enzyme deficiency which prevents the full development of a penis in utero, and functioning testes, though usually undescended at birth. The penis often develops a bit more at puberty, but men affected cannot grow male facial hair. They are nevertheless men and they get the puberty turbo-charge that other men get. So no, definitely not a woman and definitely doesn't belong not in female sport. If Khelif and Lin have the same DSD, the same applies to them.

However, I will never refer to either of them as a man unless they decide to transition themselves.
They don't need to "transition". They are all men. We don't know for sure what DSD Lin and Khelif have, although 5-ARD looks likely, but their sex is not in doubt since they have both been sex-screened twice.

They were observed female at birth, they were raised female
This is doubtful in Semenya's case. There is evidence that shows everyone was well aware of the teenage Semenya's sex. Eg - a photo of him in his own biography wearing a boy's bathing trunks at the beach.

and if they had not gone into sport, their DSDs may never have been identified and they likely would have lived their whole lives as women.
Very unlikely. You don't get to the age of 18 or 20, have no periods, without investigating. Plus because 5-ARD is inherited, there is usually another family member with the same condition. Not to mention that it is well enough known is populations in which it clusters to have colloquial local names - "penis at 12", or "turny-man" being two examples.

They have not had a male upbringing with all the benefits (and challenges) that entails and they would have no more understanding of what it means to be male than anyone born and raised male has of being female, regardless of the Y chromosome.
Debatable, especially in Semenya's case.

Do you really think Semanya lives as a women or even believes himself to be a women (other than for the purposes of cheating)

This photo is from his autobiography. Do many 15 year old girls go topless on school trips ?

Bit confusing - I meant to say that because of the condition, the penis is underdeveloped but the testes, though working, are undescended at birth.

That's the badger! That was the photo I was thinking of, thank you for posting it, spannasaurus.
Plus if you have seen him being interviewed it's obvious he doesn't even try to present "as a woman" in his ordinary life.

To me it's less inherently anti-social and more a warning sign that someone dislikes themselves so much that they want to erase every trace of their old selves. New name, new gender, and welcome to a world where no one can question you and you never have to explain how you know you're a woman or what being a woman means to you. Instead, you've reduced an entire gender to a stereotype and you don't even have to say what that stereotype is.

No one likes everything about themselves. No one gets everything they want. Most people accept that and get on with making the most of what they've got. So why, I wonder, would you go to those lengths? It's got to give you something, and I'm not comfortable that that seems to be power over women by removing their safe spaces.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but Stonewall's policy of never explaining or giving interviews means I've got nothing else to explain it with. All I know is that you could talk to a hundred women and get a hundred different ideas of what it means to them, yet a man can apparently decide that they are 'a woman' as if it's the same as being a Tunnocks Tea Cake when we're not made to a recipe!

(PS, if they come in milk and plain then please don't tell me! I know caramel wafers do, but a tea cake to me has to be milk.)

The thing is though that women who feel there are some men and some circumstances in which they would be willing to participate in sports or share changing rooms with those men are free to do so in additional mixed sex provisions.

This enables those men to have that experience with consenting women, and that group can work out how they manage the boundaries and the behaviours that will follow.

It cannot involve removing single sex facilities and accessibility for those women not interested in exploring this consenting experiment.

Worth bearing in mind there are stories about Olympic scouts seeking out people with DSDs.

I think people should be allowed to have a ladies book club plus their one gay friend (even if it deeply annoys me and I feel it changes the vibe) and it's not the government's business. So they can invite their trans woman friends if they feel like it. I'll not go, but I don't think it should be illegal.

This sounds very reasonable. However it is based on mutual tolerance and good will, and social contract. Unfortunately TQ activists have broken that past repair. This nice good will and tolerating that women's groups can not be actually and completely really just women's groups because it's nice not to fuss and have a bit of leeway has been used as a tool to deny the right of any group to be women only and to prevent women from saying no to any man.

This had to go all the way through the courts, because this loophole has driven for example lesbian groups under ground to escape the men who insist on being present because some groups wanted to bring their male lesbian identifying friends, who also had friends, not all of whom behaved nicely, and wanted all the groups all the time which meant women who didn't want/couldn't access women only were left with nothing. There was no mutual 'respect'.

Activists have smashed the good chap principle. It's gone, it's a lost and innocent time. If women are to be permitted anything at all it now, has to be that if it is labelled women only, using the legal discrimination permitted, it has to be women only. Bring along your lovely friend and that's the end, it's mixed sex and open to all. Very likely this will evolve to less specific interest based groups like Tandora's seven kinds of toilets with lots of labels (vulnerable though to chancers and annoyances) alongside women only groups which are strictly women only and activists tolerating the existence of these.

Your tolerance sounds lovely in theory but it ends women's rights and access, and the inclusion in society of women with less options through a luckier life history.

Perhaps we should also have accommodations for people who believe the earth is flat and those who believe it is round, so they can both learn to respect the other's world view.

What annoys me is the idea of accepted reasons for a legal entitlement. Who gets to decide what's accepted? Somehow I suspect that the answer to that involves someone with external gender based biological features. Say those that resemble one Tunnocks caramel wafer and two tea cakes?

I'd also remind of the case of the 'lovely friend' and how it goes wrong: the group of teenaged girls who with adult support decided to let their lovely friend who was a boy with gender distress share their changing room and undress with him. They'd known him since early school days, he was a friend and trusted.

From an adult safeguarding perspective the red flags form a forest and this should not have been a situation any of those kids were allowed to get into, but they were, and the girls were not distressed. Until a new boy in the year, newly entered, with a rep for sexual harassment and dodgy behaviour, identified as a girl and required his right of precedent that since that boy could be there in an open plan changing room with girls taking showers, so could he. And the school were in a hard position because they couldn't now say no. The girls emphatically didn't want him in there, they did not consent. But the precedent had been set, and it couldn't work for one boy and not another.

And that's before we start unpacking what they did when girls inevitably had histories and diversities that were incompatible with even lovely boys with good behaviour wanting to undress next to them. One person's lovely friend is another person's end of access.

Yeah, he obviously knows what's up.

Exactly. No one gets to decide what I 'must' find acceptable. No one gets to tell me my feelings are wrong or I am whatever the current fashionable equivalent of a stinky poo pants is because I don't want what they tell me I should want and won't do as they tell me to. Most of all, no one should be allowed to get away with 'anticipating' the law when what they mean is 'taking someone else's rights away to make a profit while misleading people who are already not happy.'

If they were happy then they wouldn't want to change their name and gender and dump anyone who wouldn't do what they wanted. They'd be off somewhere being happy not thinking 'if I do all that then I will be happy.' I wonder how much of the anger is because they're not as happy as they were expectng to be and need to be angry with someone because they've realised that they've been misled. Only blaming the people who misled them means being thrown out of the group, so they go for the nasty people who've pointed out the problem.

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

Interesting reading. I would’ve said the same re women being better at assessing risk but being risk averse also makes sense given our physical vulnerabilities, being the ones to carry and nurture our young, and quite often learning from our negative experiences. Not to mention , social conditioning effects. How often do parents and teachers say ‘be careful Belinda’ whilst also encouraging Brian to ‘go for it’ when they’re out playing or climbing trees?

On the other hand, whilst we do have to take some risks in life, the testosterone fuelled too much risk taking has not been particularly helpful either.

The question posed to Tandora was to name the commonality between Tandora on the one hand and me / @TheKeatingFive on the other. However, Tandora's reply was "The commonality you share is that you both understand yourself to be a woman/ female" - in other words, Tandora carefully phrased their answer to exclude Tandora, presumably because Tandora couldn't identify what the three of us have in common.