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.

because it was created for the purpose of being able to discuss the negative impacts of transgender Ideology on female people and on children*

Was it really?

Translation, "thanks for posting, truly value what you say, but you're an idiot talking absolutely nonsense, even though what you're saying is factually correct as evidenced by tavistock testimony, and even though I am completely betraying my woke credentials by denying your lived experience".

Poor poor man.

I agree that dismantling all forms of gender based control/ oppression/ hierarchy/ violence is good thing as is accommodating diversity.

This issue is who defines the oppression? For centuries, women have fought for our rights as a social group with shared characteristics, experiences, and they derive from - but are not limited to - our biological specificity: we are biological females, not biological males.

So our oppression is what we know it to be: based on our sex.
It is not for members of the male sex - whether they are trans or not - to tell us we may or may not organise together and support each other and be entitled to our own spaces.
It is not for members of the male sex - whether they are trans or not - to insist that they are us and share our oppression - they are not, and they do not

That is the essential conflict between the rights of women and girls and trans people - the right of women to our own identity.

Some men respect this. James Connolly, for instance, writing about

the efforts of those women who, feeling on their souls and bodies the fetters of the ages, have arisen to strike them off...

...cheer all the louder if in its hatred of thraldom and passion for freedom the women’s army forges ahead of the militant army of Labour.
...
None so fitted to break the chains as they who wear them, none so well equipped to decide what is a fetter.
[The James Connolly Reader by Shaun Harkin]

We are deciding what is a fetter, not men, and not men who identify as women.

Oh I agree, but do you know what? I doubt most blokes would care and it would be interesting to see what happens.

As long as it's not groups set up for women (like WI) and the group was clear about it's intention, fair enough.

And we would see what happens.

I do. I find it endlessly fascinating that it's never been suggested (at least as a mainstream argument outside unmentionable GC circles) that the term "transwoman" could be seen as equally as offensive to women, as misgendering is to a trans person. These are both, as Tandora has said before, simply value judgements. Neither is right nor wrong.

But I think it's telling that, as opposed to there being som degree of public debate about whether women may find it offensive to have their only word (the word used to make a political argument in just the last hundred years for the vote - necessary in just the last 50 to liberate themselves from marital rape and to be able to open bank accounts and hold mortgages etc.) taken from them and expanded to include the group that withheld these rights previously.

For not only this word to be taken in this way, but for there to be wide societal consensus that women are not just unreasonable but bigotted for opposing this, is, for me, one of the strongest arguments possible for our need to retain it.

Transwomen are male by definition.

Why don't you campaign for discrete third spaces and services rather than endlessly badgering women to give up theirs? Especially if dignity for all is your goal.

I'd actually say poor poor child. He was 16.

Everyone benefits from living in a society that is inclusive/ accommodating of diversity, and respects the dignity and rights of all people, including minorities.

We all suffer from living in a society predicated on the reverse.

I don't agree with you that transwomen are male by definition.

Isn't the one starting point requirement to be a transwoman, is to be a man?

Indeed. But you must include 'women' in the concept of 'all people' in 'the dignity and rights of all people'.

Yes!

Some people complained that this board was being given over to women who just wanted to discuss this issue in this way....in the way I've described; so it was further hived off from the main women's rights board...leaving people to discuss other issues that effect women and girls there.

This board is as I've described. No matter how many times you wish that was not the case, it will remain so,

That is something that gender critical feminists like to say, but it is not a meaningful statement.

What are your thoughts on the ParaOlympics?

Should they include able-bodied people?

No all inclusivity is positive.

I do not benefit from allowing men into female changing rooms. You haven't convinced me that I do. Please explain how I benefit in that scenario.

How's this, OP? ⬇️

1. Sex = a biological definition of male (boys, men) and female (girls women). Every human's sex is determined at fertilisation by the presence or absence of a functioning SRY gene.

For the vast majority of people, when present this gene attaches to the Y chromosome (where the vast majority of males have XY chromosomes) and functions normally to create functioning male reproductive organs. Regardless, every person's biological sex can be established as either male or female through testing.

2. Gender = predicated on a belief that everyone has a soul which is male, female or neither, gender defines how some people make sense of cultural and societial expectations. For example, some XY (male sex) people may perceive themselves to have a female gender because their preferences align with stereotypes that a culture or society associates with girls or women e.g. wearing a dress.

3. Diversity = specific to this subject, recognising that for some people sex is irrelevant (because gender is relevant to them) and for other people gender is irrelevant (because sex is relevant to them)

And from further down the thread...

4. Gender non-conforming = somebody (who believes that everyone has a soul that is male, female or neither) whose preferences do not align with the stereotypes that a culture or society associates with their sex.

Thinking of myself in relation to the above:

1. Sex = female. As a human who has grown to adulthood, this means I am a woman.

2. Gender = N/A. I do not believe that I have a soul that is female (or male or neither), therefore gender is irrelevant to me and I do not describe myself in relation to gender for any purposes.

3. Diversity = my views might typically be considered to be "gender critical", "sex realist" or similar. I do not use these terms for myself but I accept that my views are likely to differ significantly from someone who values the importance of gender instead of sex. This difference in views represents diversity and can be the basis of discussion e.g. through open debate, diverse opinions can help to determine whether sex or gender should be considered more important for sports, spaces or healthcare on the occasions that it is important to distinguish between males and females. On such occasions, I advocate the importance of sex and the irrelevance of gender.

4. Gender non-conforming = N/A. As I do not have a gender, I neither conform or "non-conform" to one. People who believe that everyone has a gender may have opinions on whether I look gender conforming or non-conforming because they will easily observe my sex and may apply their own judgement as to whether I am "conforming" to the stereotypes that they associate with women. Their perception of me in this respect is irrelevant to me, including if they refer to me as "cis".

In that case it needs a renaming I think.

If they were female they would just be women.

There are 2 sexes. So by definition they are male.

Unless you think there are more than 2 sexes.

We know you don't.

Are you really going to have everyone take you through it all over again?

It is, as I can't be a transwoman, can I. As I am a woman and there's nothing to trans from or to.

Based on the open sneering at SA survivors on the other thread, I don't think we're going to get an explanation beyond reframe your trauma and also budge up and make room for the male women.

The only way to persuade me to even begin to start thinking of speaking along these lines, is to prevent the stealing of words like; Woman, that have been applied to me since birth 69yrs ago.

I think Man Rejecting Manhood and Woman Rejecting Womanhood works.

It emphasize the truth.

It emphasizes that Men and Men and Women are Women. It emphasizes that it is about rejection of one's sexed reality. It reminds us that sex is binary and no-one transitions to anything. It avoids using the word "woman" in any way for a man (and vice versa). It is inclusive of genderfluid, genderfuck, non-binary, agenda, ogender, igender, catgender, attack helicopters etc etc.

Its an absolute truth.
You cannot be or become a trans woman unless you were born as a male child.