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.

Indeed. When Oscar pistorious wanted to run in the olympics as opposed to the paralympics the IOC devoted months to deciding whether his blades gave him an advantage over able bodied runners

Great!

Let's leave women's single sex spaces as they are a you can campaign for your women plus men who identify as trans spaces.

Excellent. I very much look forward to seeing how that goes.

ok if we could just use words like male as commonly defined - XY chromosome holders ( xxy etc )

or you could suggest a word you would be happy to distinguish the xx from xy ?

because those whatsoever you want to call them do matter - for medical treatment if nothing else - that swollen belly can’t be a baby in an XY

we see a lot of commonality between XY s and between XX - height and weight and muscle , the ways in which they abuse others - how society treats them - XX being more likely to be held responsible for child and parental care for example

by refusing to accept the bleeding obvious you show great rudeness in a thread you asked to be respectful

If it has no meaning, did you understand what was meant by it?

How do you propose to legally create these spaces for women & men who have the delusion that they are women?

You can create single sex spaces because of the provisions of the Equality Act but you cannot discriminate against the men who do not have a delusion that they are women by excluding them.

@Tandora I asked what I thought was a fairly straightforward question. Had to repeat it, as no answer was forthcoming. So I’m trying again. I am really interested to know how you would answer this. I’m equally interested that you seem to be ignoring it though!

I’m a biological woman. I identify as female, i.e. the female gender. Please can you tell me how I should conform to my gender?

In what way is it not meaningful?

all trans women begin as men

no woman can become a trans woman

S/he would not last 24 hours on reddit - banned for transphobia without question if s/he posted as s/he does here.

From the internet, about Tandora's understanding of what 'trans' is:

Saying that “trans people are people who are a sex other than the one observed at birth” can be considered inaccurate or exclusionary.

It still defines trans identity in biological terms. Framing transness as being a “different sex” focuses on sex (a biological category) rather than gender identity (a social and psychological one). Many trans people describe their experience in terms of gender, not physical sex characteristics.

It excludes nonbinary, agender, and gender-diverse people.

That wording assumes there are only two possible “sexes,” and that being trans means moving from one to the other. But many trans people — such as nonbinary, genderqueer, or agender individuals — don’t identify with any binary sex. So they don’t fit into the idea of being “a sex other than the one observed at birth.”
A more accurate and inclusive way to phrase it would be something like:
“Trans people are people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.”
This wording avoids reducing identity to biology, includes nonbinary people, and reflects how trans people generally describe themselves.

--
Now, I don't personally agree with a lot of that, but this is a summary of how trans people would respond to the narrow definition of it being people who are different sex from the one they were born as.

Tandora, do you agree, or do you think 'trans' means what you said it means?

But they are separate concepts. One (gender) is based on societal stereotypes/concepts associated with the other (sex). These stereotypes and concepts vary by location, culture and time.

If mental illness is stigmatizing sure we should never tell anyone they're mentally ill. Probably best not to treat them or lock them up if they are a proven danger to society either, that would be stigmatizing too.

Do you agree? As a queer theirist whose explicit aim is to queer (ie destroy) civilized society you must agree?

What you have written here is an expression of "absolutism", this is a type of black and white thinking that is associated with extremism - it discourages questioning, debate, critical thinking and understanding alternative evidence or interpretations, and overlooks complexities, nuances, and differing perspectives.

This type of thinking leads to intolerance and dogmatism. It disregards this dynamic nature of knowledge and assumes infallibility where curiosity, humility, openness, and recognition of complexity are much more appropriate.

Tandora, could I gently suggest that you ignore posts with which you disagree or which you see as disrespectful in favour of the spirit of the thread as stated in your OP?

I'd love you to answer my consistently courteous re-posted set of questions. (Maybe you have by the time I type this - I hope so, and apologies if this is the case).

Otherwise, in your choosing to engage in depth with other posts that don't meet your requirements for this debate instead of fairly lengthy, thoughtful ones that do, it does become difficult not to wonder whether that says something about your own capacity to debate this issue in a meaningful way.

PS I hope you won't use my last, somewhat more direct, sentence as a way to avoid answering my questions. It's simply a true reflection of the way my thinking has progressed after reading the majority of your posts, and responding to quite a few of them - always respectfully - across several hundred pages.

Any chance of a link please. Respectfully please. LOL.

After Tandora's disgusting treatment of SA survivors I have no real interest in this thread, except that it shows female socialisation is a hell of a drug.

Tandora: I will keep spamming out my word salad and you will all treat me as a serious intellectual trying to have a good faith conversation

FWR feminists: ok then

I'm out.

Is your AI generator over heating?

If a trans woman isn’t a man, and a trans man isn’t a woman, what does the trans bit of the term mean? What is the transition?

For me personally overcrowding has contributed to this being a difficult problem.
For most of my adult life I've been aware of how few facilities there are for woman.
I can still remember my mother telling me about separate waiting rooms in railway stations for woman and much larger loos.
There has never been adequate provision for women's loos at theatres, shopping malls, shops. My school and uni were pretty bad.
Disabled loos are often 1 cubicle shared. Some facilities can be split. My local theatre has a mens and a women's separate disabled loo in different locations.
Mens loos don't seem to have that same overcrowding which can be observed by the lack of a queue.
The idea that women should be willing to share their already inadequate space seems unreasonable to me.

Would it be acceptable to end single sex spaces for women if there was evidence that "most women did not care"? No.

Why would it be acceptable to discriminate against the majority of men simply because (in your view) most blokes wouldn't care?

This is about human rights. Consistency matters.

There is a conflict. Toilets designs change when there is not a single sex space in front of toilet cubicles. The cubicles become private. This is of most detriment to the medically vulnerable, women and children.

‘Inclusive’ in toilet-speak means making cubicles private. However this leads to more wilful misbehaviour including sexual assaults, more pathogens due to inability to clean as well, less ventilation, a greater chance of not being found in time if you have a medical emergency.

Surveys (fairly conclusively) and anecdata (anecdotally!) suggest that women, given the choice, favour single-sex.

Please can you tell me how I should conform to my gender?

I'm not sure where to start with this question. There is no "should" involved. I am describing things, not instructing things.

A person who is gender non-conforming is someone whose appearance or behaviour transgresses/ fails to to conform to social expectations associated with their birth sex/ sex of social rearing. An example of this, would be a boy who insists only on wearing the girls uniform at school (e.g. dresses/ skirts). This behaviour would not conform to social expectations; it does not mean this boy is trans (sees himself as a girl).

This is interesting. From what I can tell according to trans people being a woman is wearing long hair, swishy skirt, makeup, liking doors to be held open for them, struggling to open jars, giggling, liking the colour pink.

Being a woman is essentially an 1950's housewife stereotype and what we have been trying to get away from since the 60's - conforming to gender stereotypes is sexist rubbish

So where does that leave the minority of people who happen to be women , but who also claim diversity through their religion, their ethnicity, or their life experience involving sexual abuse or rape and who for those reasons - some recognised in law as protected characteristics as you know, - either do not wish to, or are prohibited by social, ethnic or religious practise to share spaces with male bodied people. Are you saying that they don’t have a right to express opinions on their own privacy, well being and security, or are they expected to accept and “ suffer from living” in a society that prioritises male feelings and wishes over female feelings and wishes. How are their dignity and rights served by female spaces being usurped by males?

What you have written here is an expression of "absolutism", this is a type of black and white thinking that is associated with extremism - it discourages questioning, debate, critical thinking and understanding alternative evidence or interpretations, and overlooks complexities, nuances, and differing perspectives.
This type of thinking leads to intolerance and dogmatism. It disregards this dynamic nature of knowledge and assumes infallibility where curiosity, humility, openness, and recognition of complexity are much more appropriate.

I'm going to reply with this the next time HMRC asks me if everything I've declared on my self-assessment is correct.