Do you exist IRL?

[EdgeOfThirtySeven]

It's just that I see so many TRAs stating that "nobody IRL cares about this stuff", so maybe we just all exist on Twitter/X and Mumsnet? Sort of disembodied AI? Not actual women in actual buildings, doing actual jobs and leading actual lives?

When Katy Colin Montgomery briefly returned to Twitter/X for his drunken pre- and post-Christmas rants, they centered on the idea that:

Man it's so weird looking at twitter and seeing GCs still going on and on about their nonsense ideology. Literally no one irl thinks about trans people at all. No one cares. If they got a hobby they'd be cured of their relentless insanity in an instant

...

Obviously I've not posted for ages because of, you know, the nazis and the bots and how authoritarian Elon has even censored the word cîs. But there's one thing I wanted to say: Gender Critical isn't real. No one irl gives a fuck AT ALL

I'm pretty sure that I exist IRL. My dog certainly relies on that. Oh, and my loving family, and friends 😆

I’ve told this story on here before. I was on a quiet street in Brighton when a transwoman came up behind me & asked my opinion of his hair, makeup and dress.

He was twice my size, there was nobody else around & I was scared. So obviously, I smiled, complimented him & got away ASAP. What else was I going to do?

He probably went off thinking I meant every word.

Yep. I exist. So does my DD who desisted after 7 years of hell and is still damaged and confused after her experience and the continued lack of non affirming therapy.

I have family members who seem completely unaware of the issue, despite having a niece/granddaughter who has attempted suicide etc. Just couldn’t be arsed to understand the issue on any level as they were either male or privileged women who never use public baths, toilets and changing rooms, or women’s rape centres and refuges, thank God.

I think JKR really highlighted that part of the issue when she called out Emma Watson recently. It isn’t posh MC women who are majorly impacted (unless you are the mother of a posh middle class [autistic] girl who thinks she is man… lots of those, though many of those still inhabit a Neverland where BeKind to my special child is the religion).

I think what is is is that we have become a more censored version of ourselves IRL. Yes, everyone is being a little nicer and a little less rude and blunt in the name of not being cancelled or not having a HR report, but the truth is the ideologies still exist inside the person, and they are probably fuelling whatever they believe in online.

I find it takes so much longer to know what people’s beliefs are IRL, but once you know, it’s like you’ve met your tribe and all of these micro communities now form, and you don’t know who is in what group.

I also find people are more judgmental IRL of people that do not belong in their camp. I have witnessed this - for instance with the Isreal v Palestine - I have witnessed colleagues completely stop speaking to eachother because of what the other posted online - I’ve also seen people meet others that think like them online, join a community, and sometimes those communities have highly influential people who are then able to bring change at work (could be positive or negative).

I’ve seen it with the trans movement too. Yes, IRL people are polite enough, but then over the past year many genderless toilets have started disappearing - someone, somewhere is making those decisions.

So whilst I would say, of course we exist IRL, but we also have a digital twin and we have to question how much that twin reflect IRL us or a mental version of us nobody often gets access to.

Jade. Perhaps you could save us time by letting us know one of those articles that gives a non-circular definition of what a woman is. (They don't - if they did it would be widely shared as it's asked for all the time.)

Then we can discuss for example whether that new definition is the appropriate one to use for sports categories. It won't be, because sports are about how our physical bodies can perform. Identity feelings don't win races, physical bodies do.

Scientists can study what "people who say they identify as non-binary" do or feel. They have no definition of what a non-binary person /is/ except a belief that people hold about themselves. They could just as meaningfully study Christian people. Holding particular beliefs can affect us psychologically, but it doesn't make us a different category of biological human being.

Of course not, but my point is the people that I see discussed on here probably run shoulders quite happily in all walks of life and won't have a clue

You could kindly include the whole quote for context and stop with the personal attacks

Or he may well have seen a friendly face is doesn't time presenting as a female and asked your opinion as they were very anxious. (He could also have been a massive creep)

I don't understand how that is relevant.

It doesn't make it more or less necessary for women to have sex based rights.

It's sometimes difficult to tell somebody's age - that doesn't mean that age is irrelevant.

You might as well argue that a 13 year old should be able to drive as long as they look 17.

Remember, the default position is that sex discrimination is unlawful. We should only be discriminating in situations when sex is relevant. If it isn't relevant, then just don't discriminate at all.

I did include the whole quote for context.

And I was merely pointing out that you are as "gender critical" as the rest of us, if you believe a man "presents" as a woman/female. Because we are told to believe that that man is a woman, or we are bigots and transphobes.

And incidentally betrayed just how sexist, unworldly and prejudiced they are. I mean, have they ever actually met or talked to a real life middle aged woman in the 2020s? Cos seems to me their images of women are pretty much just what they see in porn for young women, and the background characters from bad sitcoms for the rest of us 😂

There you go again. Calling a transwoman "he". You really are one of us!

They have been discussed at length on this website. I suggest you do the googling.

Ah, so I was correct in thinking you haven't actually read any scientific data and aren't able to reason out as to why your GC ideology has scientific basis. No, I thought not.

I have no real hobbies 🙁 because I’m too busy with both my paid employment and my time-consuming voluntary role, involvement with grandchildren and exercise at the gym. That’s quite enough in my early seventies.

Ha ha ha. I love that you think that is some kind of Gotcha. Bless.

Laydeez, did you not know that gender is all sciencey!! 😆

the delusional GC ideology

The phrase of the moment, it seems.

Here you go

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zsq9r2p

As I said before, it's odd to post on this website and not seem to understand the basics of sex.

Unless I have just missed the section of the website for all those 'help, I thought I was a man but what I thought was a large lunch turned out to be a baby' threads.t

I was quoting the poster ...

I suspect it was a AI dump and that the poster in question will not have read the links themselves.

I notice that Fausto Sterling has been included which is pretty laughable.

As I said on the "non-GC" thread:

Another timewaster who can't engage properly

Dump being the right word, Helle. There’s no way I’d ever click on links posted by a genderist anyway.

It was a dump.

Because anyone who had actually read and thought about the links would have posted something significant about each one. Even if it was just the abstract or discussion points.

This was a dump that is pretty funny when you look at it.

Friendly face?

He came up behind me so he couldn’t have thought I was smiling at him. I don’t know if he was anxious but he was intimidating whether he wanted to be or not, and how did I know he wouldn’t hit me if I didn’t validate him?

Ummmmm.... Did you even check what you have posted?

Core Peer-Reviewed Papers on Non-Binary / Multi-Gender Identities
Richards et al. (2016) – Non-binary or genderqueer genders
International Review of Psychiatry
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753630/
doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446

This is behind a paywall. Maybe Finch would like to tell us exactly what significant information has been produced in this paper that proves that Gender Identities exist beyond someone's personal belief about themselves that reflects the material reality?

Here is the abstract:

Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people. Population-based studies show a small percentage – but a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbers – of people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as such – while not being disorders or pathological in themselves – people with such genders remain at risk of victimization and of minority or marginalization stress as a result of discrimination. This paper therefore reviews the limited literature on this field and considers ways in which (mental) health professionals may assist the people with genderqueer and non-binary gender identities and/or expressions they may see in their practice. Treatment options and associated risks are discussed.

There is no doubt in most people's minds that some people have a gender identity. Because anyone can adopt any identity they wish in their life. What this paper doesn't say is why any person's philosophical belief about themselves should be treated as if it has a materially real biological foundation that means it should supersede sex class when sex class matters.

Care to elaborate on this one Finch?