Talking to non GC people

[Sausagenbacon]

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

I think when people know or are related to someone who has adopted a trans identity their viewpoint becomes skewed...and tends to become personalised and focused on the one with the trans identity, not on the general principles at stake.

But civil society does not make laws or rules that are predicated on personal feelings and relationships; it makes rules and creates guidelines which are based on common sense ( ususally) and on easily definable categories and clear lines of differentiation - so that everyone understands the lines and boundaries and knows where they are in relation to them.

but I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots

Completely agree

I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me. I don’t want anyone to feel discriminated against or unsafe, and it makes me sad that so much of the debate centres on ‘diagnosing’ or determining who trans people are.

I think that any group that claims particular rights needs to be able to explain what the group is - that is why I think it's important to define women, and why I think it's necessary to define 'trans'. The trans umbrella is so wide that it effectively includes gender critical feminists who don't think they have a gender. The only reason to exclude them is that they they are from the wrong tribe, not because they don't fit the criteria.

It's also necessary to define 'trans' if children are being given life changing medical treatment with harmful side effects because they are 'trans'. One of my main concerns about the Puberty Blocker trial is that nobody has spelled out what 'gender incongruence' means.

Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet

I don't know your cousin's sex, but whether they are male or female, if they use an opposite sex facility it becomes mixed sex and that has an impact on other people. You might feel that other people shouldn't care, but then you are arguing for a mixed sex facility. There is no logical possibility of a single sex facility that can be used by either sex. There is no 'nice' or 'middle ground' way to get around this. It's just a consequence of living in the material world.

@financialcareerstuff

I totally understand feeling overwhelmed by the level of response. Don't hesitate to step back if you need time and/or space. You can always revive this thread later on if you wish, or start another one on a specific point you may want to discuss, or whatever.

Which of course means that you don't have to comment on the following points whatsoever. I'm just leaving them here in hopes that they help you understand where I come from.

I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots.

This really speaks to me! Realising that the very word "woman" had been taken away from women, and its definition had to be reaffirmed by the UKSC, is the major event that made me finally understand what the women on this board were fighting for.

I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me.

That's actually good, because there's no one definition anyway. And no scientific evidence either, beyond, "Yes, there are people who think this or that."

However, I do feel for normal people who are struggling with their gender identity and simply want to feel accepted and safe. My natural inclination is to accept anybody who is just wanting to be who they want to be, and not think I have a say in it [...] However, I realise that this quiet ‘let it be’ acceptance has stopped working on a systemic level, and I am very sad about that.

Yeah, I understand, I'm the same. And I do believe that a lot of the general support for trans people comes from this place of acceptance. I know if I weren't trans myself, I'd feel awful having to choose between supporting women's rights and showing acceptance to trans people!

You said the only distinction is their opinions and extremity. those sound like very important distinctions to me.

What I meant is that they are not distinctions in "transness". A trans TRA and a GC trans person like me, are equally trans. Neither of us can be chucked out from under the trans umbrella because of our opinions.

And I would add another- as far as I can tell, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon who are attention seekers, bullies and polemics, and if they didn’t jump on this platform to be that, they would jump on another one instead. So I think there is a subset of activists who are simply misogynist bullies and may not ever have struggled with their identity at all.

Absolutely true, but unfortunately, they too are covered by the trans umbrella. There's no requirement for anything to be considered trans: not dysphoria, no struggle of any kind, no "living as the opposite sex", no nothing. The only rule is: "I am trans because I say I am." That's it. That's why a man who takes no hormones, has no intention of having surgeries, does no more effort to "live as a woman" than putting on a dress once a week, and goes around yelling into people's faces about "transphobia" and "I am a biological female", is just as much trans as I am or your cousin is, and would have his "trans rights" defended if those trans rights manifested in law.

So yes, there are bad apples rotting the whole barrel, but that's a feature, not a bug. The trans community is the one who welcomes those bad apples, and insists they are as trans as anyone else. The trans community would refuse it if you offered to protect the "true trans" (a concept they reject entirely) while dismissing the bad apples. Nothing GC people can do about this, I'm afraid.

One of the very first rules I was taught in the trans community was a very, very firm, "There's no such thing as AGP, don't you ever mention it!" I had no idea what AGP was, but they were adamant about it not being discussed. So I'm not surprised they carried that attitude about more common things such as transvestitism as well outside the community.

I used to think that Jan Morris represented the kind of person who might be quietly included, and then I read the article his daughter wrote about her childhood and what he really thought about women.

I'm not suggesting that Jan Morris was ever a physical threat to women - it's just that I don't understand why he is different to other men. The only reasoning behind allowing him to use a women's facility seems to be his personal desire to do so.

The only reasoning behind allowing him to use a women's facility seems to be his personal desire to do so

This gets to the nub of it for me.

Women are being asked to give up things that belong to them ... purely because men want access to them. There is no justification being offered. It's just about men's desire.

And then we're called bigots if we don't roll over and give it to them. 🫠

This "Middle Ground" business seems to require you to

1. ignore all safeguarding when someone says they are trans even though in every other circumstances it's totally non negotiable
2. ignore how the law requires clear universal definitions which are none negotiable
3. ignore how definitions of gender rely exclusively on sexist gender stereotypes (which may at times be into the realms of illegality) which are regressive for women and accept the entrenchment and reinforcement of these stereotypes
4. ignore biology and not mention biology even when it might be relevant and essential for the wellbeing of a trans person themselves
5. ignore the lived experiences of women who have felt trauma from males.
6. ignore the lived experiences of middle aged women who have said that they went through a period of struggling with their sex because they hated not being male due to sexism and how they'd wished they'd been male but are totally at peace with this now.

You are supposed to believe that it is a neutral act to use preferred pronouns and to de-sex language
7) thus pretending that gender neutral language is neutral and not biased towards men when it is used and ignore the problem that there's gendered usage of 'gender neutral language' - it's use and enforcement is targeted at the word 'woman' and anything to do with 'womanly' things whilst the word 'man' just generally gets ignored and stays where it is.
8) ignore the whole reasoning and examples of why women got women only provisions protected in law in the first fucking place.
9) force everyone to adhere to something that is unprovable, unworkable, harmful and removes safeguarding protocols and carries the threat of discipline if you don't adhere to something that actively is anti-science in order to accommodate a belief that someone else has, rather than merely making alternative parallel arrangements for those with different beliefs.
10) by going along with it, you encourage yet more threats, intimidation and harassment because the tactic has worked and merely criticising such behaviour as (rightly) unlawful has somehow been framed as not only 'unkind' but some sort of 'genocide' by those carrying out this behaviour!
11) you ignore the lived experiences of relatives and partners who have experienced a close family member transitioning and the impact on their lives and their own identity. Far from being 'just like being gay' it has a huge psychological and practical implication, which is so taboo barely anyone talks about it - in part because of outright abusive behaviour which threatens self harm if you offer any sort of honesty or self reflection of how it impacts.
12) allow vulnerable children to be sucked up into a movement which doesn't recognise the multiple different cohorts within it and how each group has very different vested interests. Instead you effectively pander primarily to middle aged male transitioners who want to use young women and children as shields to legitimise their own transition and reasons for it. This prevents exploration of trauma, actively leaves gay children and young adults in a space where outside presentation and sexist ideas are being pushed as a reason to medicalise in a 'progressive' gay conversion therapy. Actively mislead autistic children into beliefs that have no grounding in reality and they lack the capacity to fully grasp. Not to mention the Munchausen by Proxy types who have been actively recognised by respectable and neutral parties as existing.
13) forget the last fifty years or so of working towards saying it's ok for women to prioritise themselves and instead say, 'oh well no that doesn't count anymore as you are so privileged now you can forget all that and get back in your lane' whilst destroying the underpinning points of liberation.

There is nothing 'middle' about saying a bloke with a beard OR a bloke without a beard but with huge fake tits with/without a penis suddenly becomes a woman but you can't say 'er nope fuck off with that nonsense I don't believe that clap trap'.

There's nothing respectable in a man aping a woman with a fake voice, fake breast, fake walk, dressing in a way that would earn a woman a huge amount of derision for being overly sexualised in an inappropriate setting and then joining women's groups which are dedicated to talking about things like menopause, giving birth, periods and why these are proving barriers to x, y or z. It's pure colonisation and it's pure act of dominance over women. It is not an act of 'middle'. It's an act which restricts women from being able to highlight genuine issues they have disadvantage with - including from the act of self exclusion and self censorship. There's nothing polite about telling women not to mention female things because it might offend trans sensibilities. No fuck off and have your own support group for people who struggle with the reality of biology instead of trying to stop people who face their own physical struggles which you don't share - we wouldn't tolerate someone campaigning for Alzheimer's awareness turning up to a breast cancer awareness event shouting "you are privileged you have breast cancer, you are ignoring all the people with Alzheimer's how dare you not talk about Alzheimer's at this event" would we?

This middle group nonsense is a phrase trotted out by people who don't want to find out why women are complaining. They don't want to address why these women are left wing and haven't just turned into right wing Nazis - they don't want to acknowledge it's a doubling down on feminism. Because if they acknowledge that, they have to acknowledge their own sexist bias, arrogance and ignorance in not listening to anything difficult.

They just want to avoid conflict because that's a bit difficult so will the nice ladies just sit down and let the shouty aggressive men get their way. There's a good girl.

@financialcareerstuff

With respect to the “quiet inclusion,” and the idea of the gentle, passing, trans-identified man who quietly gets on and uses female spaces without bothering women, may I point you in the direction of this piece of writing, about the impact this might have on some women:

Think about that for a moment, this idea of a man who is “visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable” from a woman. Lots of women have suffered male violence, and some of those are permanently traumatised to the point that if they are surprised by a man in a supposedly female-only space, they will be retraumatised. These women may need domestic violence shelters and rape crisis services at certain times, but they don’t engage with the world solely as rape or domestic violence survivors. They have ordinary lives, too. They use public toilets, hospitals, gyms; they visit pubs, galleries, cafés, museums, theatres. They don’t wear a special badge or uniform so that we can identify them and make sure we cater for their needs. We don’t know who they are.

Obviously it’s not acceptable to say to such women “You can’t have any single-sex spaces”. But is it better to say “You can have single-sex spaces, mostly. Don’t worry: we’ll only let men use them if they look so much like women that you won’t be able to tell that they’re men.”

Think about that. Think about its power to undermine the certainty of an already traumatised woman that the woman she is dealing with at any given moment is truly a woman. If you’re not shocked by the sadistic, gas-lighting cruelty of that, you’re not doing the thinking bit right. Think harder. Think about it until you are shocked.

From here:

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/06/sex-peanuts-and-statutory-interpretation/

You see I think that virtually all trans identified males, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or asexual are motivated by AGP. 'Womanhood' and all that is associated with it becomes a fetish ( an object to be attained or which is deified). This is as true of young men who are heavily into gaming and technology as it is of older, married cross dressers and transvestites. Even the males who are same sex attracted make a fetish out of 'femininity'. I've seen it, and I recognise it.

@financialcareerstuff
Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet or consciously choose to use a pronoun that would not feel right for them. I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s.

The same tired intellectually lazy tropes just keep coming. Yet another “not my Nigel”, this time. It’s infuriating.

If there’s a problem with feminine looking men using men’s toilets, that for men to sort out. It’s not a woman’s problem.

Wow! She’s good. I have a new heroine.

I do wonder if I will ever be brave enough to ask my relative to explain what AGP is in their own words. I think it would be an interesting answer. A sexual motivation has never been mentioned as a possibility previously, and they have mainly focused in the past on male homosexual transexuals (HSTS), with the occasional mention of women who identify as non-binary.

HSTS are apparently the 'most vulnerable people ever'. I have thought there is a desire to protect and nurture them in the mix.

If GC people don’t draw that distinction themselves, then they can sound prejudiced/demonizing/stigmatizing or mocking of very pleasant, struggling people in the lives of the people they are talking to.

People who are seen as very pleasant, struggling people are still capable of wrong actions. Men are particularly prone to sexual misdemeanours and violence, and as a man I am aware of what I could do if my anger was not under control, or what I could do if I lacked sufficient respect for women's boundaries or indeed other societal boundaries. Good men are not entirely safe, as can sometimes be seen following brain injury or the onset of dementia. I have seen no conclusive evidence that men who claim a trans identity are as safe in these respects as women. I have no wish to distress trans people, but I will not treat them as if they are different in these respects from others of the same sex.

I don't know about "all", because I've met some transwomen who didn't seem to care about being feminine in any stereotypical way. Though of course I only know what they looked like and how they acted in public - nothing about their private lives.

Quite a few other transwomen, however, yes, it's obvious it's a fetish. I remember a forum discussion that baffled me at the time, where a TW insisted she just had to wear a tight blouse, a leather miniskirt and high heels to go get her morning bread and croissants on Saturday mornings, and it wasn't fair that people looked at her weird. I pointed out that she would pass a lot better in jeans and baskets, but she seemed to completely miss the point. I realise now that it was I who missed the point...

This, precisely.

And the much vaunted difference between "Genuine" and "Not Genuine" simply boils down to the man in question's self image. But his self image does nothing to change the woman in question's experience of him. So again, the conversation, the "middle ground" is still being framed by the man's needs and the man's perspective rather than womens.

And it bothers me that posters think they are being objective when they do this.

In what way did these few 'unfeminine' transwomen present ( if not in typically feminine attire?) if you don't mind me asking?

The TW I see around and about in my city, even if dressed in jeans and a jumper - still hold feminine postures and adopt feminine mannerisms which always appear very consciously studied - until the moment they think nobody is looking or when they lapse into instinctive, unguarded movement or behaviour when the masculine poses and stances re-appear.

I used to see one guy who would ride around the city posing very provocatively on his bicycle - in front of queues of traffic at traffic lights - in a sort of 'tennis girl bare bum' way in his short tartan mini skirt ( you know the famous poster?) - but then another time as i was walking into the city alongside the riverside promenade ( very sparsely populated) he cycled by in a very strong and athletic 'masculine' way going in the opposite direction.

If GC people don’t draw that distinction themselves, then they can sound prejudiced/demonizing/stigmatizing or mocking of very pleasant, struggling people in the lives of the people they are talking to.

To touch on this reoccuring point.

If you decide that someone GC is being prejudiced because of their tone, who is being the prejudiced one here in trying to silence, belittle and shut down the conversation because it raises some really difficult and uncomfortable shit you don't want to acknowledge? If you assume they are 'bad people' because they disagree with the idea that there is no middle ground without fully engaging with the subject you are caught up in your own ignorance, narrow mindedness and holier than thou self righteousness. ESPECIALLY if you know this person well, think well of them, are articulate or intelligent or otherwise demonstrate themselves as being people who think of others and help others. ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN rather than being so fucking dismissive and ask the crucial question; what are they seeing that I'm missing?

This is not our problem to fix.

I'm not going to compromise and self censorship because someone doesn't like the way I say something. It doesn't mean I don't have a completely valid, reasonable and fair point. If you need everything packaged in a PR feeling, glossy case more fool you - you are clearly vulnerable to how something is presented not the merit of a case. Now go away and think about the implications of this and how much of a politicians wet dream you are for being so unthinking and uncriticial in your own right. Go away and and think about how vulnerable to advertising and political messaging you are, if you can't cope with criticial debate.

You've got a brain. Get off your arse and use it.

After nearly twenty years of dealing with this shite, I'm well past the point of giving a shit anymore. If you decide I'm a bigot thats your problem not mine. I know I'm not and those that matter to me know I'm not. I demonstrate I'm not in multiple ways that I don't feel the need to plaster all over social media.

Depends what you want, really? I got some Baileys and chocs and a nice bag.

In what way did these few 'unfeminine' transwomen present ( if not in typically feminine attire?) if you don't mind me asking?

Well, it was feminine attire, but nothing flashy or short or tight. Like, long and loose skirts or dresses, in neutral tones. Jumpers or blouses again on the loose side, with long sleeves, and discreet motifs. Classic female haircuts in natural colours. Stuff like that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they looked like they were trying to blend into the background, instead of showing off their femininity, you know? There was also an air of... restraint, around them, like they were trying to take up as little room as possible.

But again, it's true that I didn't spend entire days around them, so maybe this was just a facade they were presenting when around the group...

My sense is that the restraint you talk about is itself a conscious feminine pose. The sense that women don't take up as much space or make such big physical gestures.... more delicate, refined, considered; a flick of the hair; a tilt of the head, very controlled movements. I've observed this too.

@financialcareerstuff

I am not sure if you have a self-determined definition of GC, but if it is purely that you are GC if you believe that women are adults who were born with vaginas etc, ie biologically based, then yes, I basically believe this already.

That's all we're saying!

There are two sexes and people can't change sex.

That's it.

You know it, we know it, even trans people know it.
You seem to be of the opinion that women here have extreme views. These are not extreme views. This is just reality. All the rest is fluffy and guff.

Women had to go to the Supreme Court to just have this basic fact everyone knew until 5 minutes ago reiterated. And it is deemed controversial!

Think about that. How has such a 'vulnerable and marginalised' group managed to get whole swathes of society to believe (or pretend to believe) a completely obvious lie?

What I would like to learn more about is the statistics of safety comparing different toilet set ups for women, and if there has been a statistical rise in attacks since male/trans people being in female toilets became more acceptable

What I woud find more interesting is what are the stats of trans identifying males being attacked in male toilets? Are there any? Are they really a dangerous place?

I'm also interested in this trope that trans identified people (but especially the males) are vulnerable. While I'm sure many are, especially the children, where is the evidence for this? When they claim that they are frequently abused what does this mean in practise? Does it mean physical assault or does it boil down to being correctly sexed?

What I woud find more interesting is what are the stats of trans identifying males being attacked in male toilets? Are there any? Are they really a dangerous place?

This, 100% - no, actually 200%.