How is the trans issue ever going to be resolved?

[PassportPanicFuuuck]

It seems as insoluble as the Israel/Palestine question when the two "sides" want directly opposing things. I've heard the arguments that trans people "just want to pee" and that "no-one would go through medical/surgical gender reassignment purely to abuse women", plus the mantras that "trans people exist", "trans rights are human rights" and "trans women are women" and it's quite clear that the people who believe these things fervently aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to a certain extent, life isn't fair. Not everyone does have equal opportunities. If you're in a gay relationship (and there's nothing wrong with that) you can't have a biological child with your partner; if you're infertile (as I am) you can't have a child at all; if you're trans (and there's nothing wrong with that either) you can't enter the spaces of the opposite sex; if you're British you don't have an automatic right to go and live in the US; if you're short and unsporty you don't have a right to be on the Olympic basketball team - and so on. All sorts of opportunities are denied people at various different points, some as a result of decisions you make (like not studying for a medical degree means I can never be a doctor) and some not (see above re. infertility), and beyond universal human rights you don't have a right - one might say "entitlement" - to an awful lot of things, much as you might keenly want them.

Like it or not, once we end up in these categories we have to accept it. Absolutely no-one is eligible to do everything or to go everywhere. However if you have made a choice - even if you consider it to be more a recognition of something innate rather than a conscious decision - it doesn't mean that you have made this choice on behalf of everyone else. If you have chosen to transition (again, you may not consider it to be a "choice") you can't dictate that everyone else ignore biology and logic and linguistic authenticity and you can't dictate that everyone else will want to celebrate your decision. No, we don't have to accept the "lady bulge", we don't have to accept child abuse under the guise of gender-affirming care and we don't have to accept men in female sports / changing rooms / organisations.

Not sure how coherently worded all the above is, but perhaps it will provoke some interesting debate.

although I am intrigued to know how long ago Quail's opinions were formed, given that the concept of 'trans' and 'gender fluid' didn't exist when e.g. the Beaumont Society formed or when Jan Morris wrote Conundrum.

Would you be willing to explain what you mean by the expression "gender continuum"? I just can't fathom such a thing, so an explanation would hopefully help!

I was an ASD kid with gender woes, I found certain forms of meditation v helpful in learning to be grounded in my body & getting away from the ASD meat puppet misconception. I'll never be quite like other ppl but that's fine, they vary one from another so there's only a mean average range to aim for.

It can be tricky because a lot of meditation is supposed to be confronting, & without its religious contexts that can be extremely difficult for people to navigate. If you want to try it, stay away from the secular "mindfulness" quacks & do a lot of reading about meditation practices before you try anything. Ideally, have a very experienced meditator who understands your position & is willing to support you in your aims & practice.

It seems worthwhile to me, I'm certainly in better physical health since I stopped allowing that maladaptive framing to govern me. Pain remains odd, as it's neurological that shouldn't surprise anyone, but at least I now have good heuristics for when to go to A&E.

You think I as a rape survivor am completely wrong for saying women and girls need a private female only place to change away from males. That's an alarming and sociopathic belief, and very disturbing. But you do you. But don't enter a conversational thread if you are not able to back your beliefs in a discussion. All you are doing is making it clear that your side cannot back your beliefs. And proving our point.

It won't be resolved. There are extremists on both sides of the argument who will brook no compromise and choose not to see reason, because they won't accept anything less than the same extremism.

So what compromise do you suggest? Remember a compromise should have both sacrifices and gains for both parties. If women sacrifice their single sex spaces, what do they gain?

I wrote a common-sense solution further up this thread and just scrolled back a few pages and can't find it now. It's really late here - almost 1 am. I don't think there's any point in going to the effort to retrace my steps and post it because no one agrees anyway. I'm not extreme enough in either direction.

Was that the waffle about allowing men in if they “pass”? So to repeat the question, what benefit do women get from allowing men into their single sex spaces? A compromise means both sides gain something and lose something. Women lose single sex spaces but what do they gain?

You don't have to answer any questions that you don't want to, but people reading this thread and trying to evaluate your opinions will draw obvious conclusions from your refusal to do so. A bit like a jury in a court, actually.

You may not be invested in changing any minds, but you clearly had some purpose for joining in a debate in public.

I didn't think it was fair to say that and leave you hanging when you'd asked, so even though I'm very tired at 1 am here, I went back and found it and copied it. Here is the "waffle" you refer to:

I think there's a workable middle-ground solution. Anyone who doesn't pass should have to produce a gender cert if challenged, and the certs shouldn't be issued until they have undergone a medical, social, and psychological transition - including a full course of hormone treatment, if not surgery.
In practice, it's self-regulating because post-transition trans women look just like women (like the ones I posted upthread here too), are no danger to anyone, and no one bats an eyelid. And anyone who is clearly a regular man should be - and is - kept out.
Maybe it's not 100 percent a perfect solution, but you can't please everyone, and I think this is the most fair. At least imo.

I bolded the last part because of your question about gain. When organising society, you can't ensure that every individual gains from all choices. I didn't personally gain anything from gay marriage being made legal, but it was the right thing to do. And it brought about a more tolerant society, which is a gain, and gave me the right to marry a woman should I want to. And the solution I posted would give you the right to live as your desired sex if you wanted to live as a man as long as you proved via the process I describe that you were serious and genuine about it, and didn't just want to gain muscle and access to male spaces in order to beat them up or stab them. Who knows, maybe you might have a son or grandson one day who can only be happy living as a woman, and my proposed solution would give him the right to live an authentic life and be happy while also keeping women safe from bad actors. And if your son/grandson was happy, presumably you would be, too.

The gain is that everyone has more rights and the rights of women are also protected. It's not perfect, but there is no perfect solution.

I suspect you will just dismiss this as waffle.

In the few short years I've been browsing MN, I have yet to see one GC person give one millimetre or entertain any fair compromise. It really is the home of extremists on this issue.

Women are in no danger from genuine trans women. It's potential bad actors who are the issue.

I'm too tired to edit myself so I'm sure you'll find much to pull apart. I probably won't return, because talking to brick walls is unfulfilling and a waste of time. In sum, I care about both tortured trans women AND women and want both to be happy and safe. I believe it's possible but will never happen thanks to the extremist positions on both sides. Both have made it very clear that there is no compromise to be had whatsoever, not one mm, so it will be as one pp said: Eventually these attitudes on both sides will simply die out. Or become less intense as the extremists on both sides age.

But how is it fair to women to give up their single sex spaces? What do they get in return? You don’t seem to get that. Why should women allow men into their single sex spaces? What do women gain? Or are you saying men are so entitled and abusive they’re going to invade women’s spaces anyway so trying to limit it to an arbitrary criteria is the best women can have? Wow! And women are supposed to be grateful for that? Nope. No Thankyou. No men in women’s spaces whatever they look like. They’ll be perfectly fine in the gents.

It's a pipe dream. We've been over this. Taking hormones does NOT feminise men in any way. There is evidence of this, such as sports and strength tests. Also hormones do not change the male skull. So no, it does not 'feminise' them, so I don't know why you lie about this. And you say "if not surgery". If they still have a penis then they have no business being where RAPE SURVIVORS LIKE ME are. Who should not have to be "tolerant" of fully intact males in our change rooms and toilets just because they inject 'hormones'. You may end up convincing yourself, but you won't convince those with eyeballs and those with education.

And, hormones also don't change the male voice (if you google you will see male vocal cords are formed differently from females, so they need operations on their vocal cords, and even that doesn't give them a truly female voice), so how do you propose to balance the right of a rape survivor who would literally drop to the floor in fear when they hear a male voice in the ladies vs that male voiced but on hormones male? Whose rights matter more? Have you forgotten that bit about voice?

You want a 'middle ground' but you are not understanding that it is simply....not....possible. You lied when you said we GC women don't want compromise. We, are the ONLY side who has offered a compromise. THIRD SPACES! That, is the compromise. So you lied.

The only middle ground is third spaces. That, is the only middle ground. Your fantasy of a 'middle ground' is an unworkable pipe dream. If you had paid any attention to the feminists in this section you would have worked that out long ago. Your fantasy is an unworkable pipe dream. You can't change male height. Hormones don't shrink a hulking 6'2 male body. You can't change male strength. Male lived experience. Or male voice. Even if (and it never does) 'titty skittles' made the male skull more 'feminine', it's the VOICE that makes women and girls freeze in fear.

You haven't said how you'd get past that one.

How do you propose to get past the voice issue, @SoftBalletShoes ?

@ThatBlackCat Oh yeah, third spaces would be the complete ideal. I only haven't mentioned them because there simply isn't room for them in every restaurant etc. Also I've latterly forgotten about that as an option, tending to post late at night when the day is done. 1.36 am here. The disabled loos could be made multi-use, but then extremists on that side would flare up too, and round and round we go. Everyone wants their own way, no one cares about anyone else, and no one will compromise. The extremists on all sides of this issue are just selfish and compromise and understanding are not in their arsenals. It's their way or the highway, and you're one of the worst offenders, Blacl Cat.

Calling me a liar at least twice above. 🙄 Nice. Enjoy being inflammatory. Waste of time talking to MN GC'ers about any of this.

Nikkie from Nikkie Tutorials has no voice issue, and neither does the link of the video that someone posted above of one of the women whose photos I included. I would never have known they were born men, by their voices or anything else.

Like I said, there is no perfect solution.

So can you explain what women gain from allowing men into female soaces or not? Why should women act against their own interests to appease men? Why not educate men to accept feminine presenting men in their spaces? Why should women lose rights?

You know voices can be dubbed in videos.

It is not possible, due to the formation and situ of the male vocal cords, to have a female voice. It simply is not physically possible. So you still haven't answered the question. Whose rights come first; women and girls who will freeze in terror at a male voice? Or the male? How do you propose to solve this problem? Please answer.

I already explained to you what the gain is. Scroll up.

It does not matter what I say, you will never take on board anything that isn't exactly what you want. Like all extremists and authoritarians, it's your way or the highway. You want what you want and you don't care about anyone else.

Which brings me back to my answer to this thread: It will not be resolved because there are extremists on both sides. Both sides are authoritarian. So they will be locked into this debate until they die.

No you didn’t. You said men were going to do it anyway so the best we can do is minimise the number. That’s not a compromise. How about a compromise is men use male facilities however they present and women support laws preventing them getting abused in those spaces? Win win.

You lied when you said hormones make male skulls more feminised and change their strength and make up.

You lied when you said that GC haven't offered a compromise. We have. THIRD SPACES.

Am I not allowed to call out a lie now? At the very least, you have misrepresented GC feminists. At the very, very least. And you should apologise for that.

I also don't think I am 'extreme' for saying there is no way hormones can change the male facioskeletal structure, nor shrink height, nor change voice. These are truisms that even you wouldn't argue with. Nor is it 'extreme' for me wanting to keep out males with male height and male voices from where RAPE SURVIVORS and DV victims are getting undressed. In fact, yours suggesting we should have these males watching us undress is the extremist position. You are projecting. You, are what you are arguing against. Yours is the extremist position. Putting male bodies with a male voice in with rape and DV survivors is not a 'middle ground', it is a CRUEL extremist position. And you really should be ashamed of yourself what you are asking rape/DV survivors to endure.

Yeah yeah, whatever. I'm a monster.

Off to kick some puppies.

No where have you said what the gain is for women and girls to have males in there. No where. And you can't. Because you know there is no benefit for women and girls to be getting undressed in front of strange males. You can't defend it.

There is NO middle ground when it comes to RAPE SURVIVORS AND DV SURVIVORS needing a female only single sex space. You either support it, or you don't. It's really that straight forward.

Your non-answer says everything about your inability to back your points up and critically think about points in a discussion below surface level. You only have slogans and pipe dreams. Yet when called on how it would work.... no answer. Your extremist position is unworkable. You know it even yourself. It's fine to want to look for some middle ground. But that is not always possible. It's unworkable in practice. The only middle ground is third spaces. That, is literally, the middle ground. Yet I don't see you arguing for that. I wonder why.

Couldn't possibly be anything to do with it being 2 am here.

No point debating with authoritarians and extremists anyway,

Do you really believe it’s an extreme position to Lee single sex spaces available for women?