Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Talking to non GC people

516 replies

Sausagenbacon · 05/01/2026 08:13

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/01/2026 08:16

SoftBalletShoes · 08/01/2026 02:45

Posted this on another thread:

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.

All that complexity juat to avoid saying "no" to men who believe they should have the right to be accepted as "women" because they act out whatever sexist stereotype they project onto us.

Seriously, take a step back and ask yourself why? Why exactly is it so important to acvomodate thexself inage of these men as "women" that you will tie yourself in knots to do it? Why is it so shocking to you to just let women say "no"?

FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/01/2026 08:22

RedToothBrush · 08/01/2026 05:07

Hello Clever Clogs giving it the 'the GC are being dicks because they don't accept x'.

I do not agree with self-ID and I think that a completed transition should be required to get a GC. By that I mostly mean a completed hormonal and social transition. Doesn't have to be surgery.

Well it's tough shit what you think on this, because courts have ruled that you can't make a distinction like this - you can't make transition dependant on medicalisation so that argument there is stone cold dead. It's irrelevant. It's regarded as a human rights related issue. So instead of complaining that GC women are the problem, actually know and understand why we are at where we are.

The GC lobby won't have it, but the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety.

The GC lobby won't have made up nonsense that has no scientific basis. 'All practical purposes' my arse. That's a definition that's doing some heavy lifting. It's not what the data says. Who says what 'all practical purposes' means anyway. Frankly it's not going to change shit relating to dignity and privacy related issues for starters. Now one of the practical reasons I've wanted to have access to single sex provision has been related to outdoor sport. As part of this there was a group I was interested in which focused on the barriers women faced and what was putting them off.

They had a talk and it was about how the socialisation of men in outdoor sport was so off-putting. They are more macho and want to take more risks whereas women are more cooperative and collaborative and like to learn at a different pace. One of the reasons for this isn't to do with aggression. It's to do with physical size and strength - for example, women have to learn skills much more than rely on brute strength. Taking hormones doesn't stop a man still being 6'1 and all the equipment being designed for them nor does it stop their reach and ability to paddle in a different way to women. It doesn't make it harder to carry a boat by yourself...

Then there's the other issues. Child care and periods and menopause. All of which create unique barriers that women have that men don't. The talk went on at length about the impact of this and how women didn't feel comfortable talking about these issues around men and how it affected confidence. There's a lot of elements regarding bodily dignity and privacy here as the subject is highly personal to many women in terms of their lives experience of this. No hormones change your inner biology and make men have periods or go through menopause and how this affects muscle strength and bone strength in women. Frankly a man in this conversation is an intruder and an observer with the best will and the most amazing drugs on offer.

And of course at the end of this talk along came a man to demonstrate how he'd completely missed the point of the majority of points covered in the previous 30 mins by declaring "can transwomen join", which killed off all other questions and made everyone listening disappear at speed. It was fascinating to watch.

So in terms of 'all practical reasons' the fact that this is being defined by individuals who place no value on any of this, and dismiss it as not a practical reason for the purposes of their argument really says a lot about who is making those judgements. It's not women.

What you see in these conversations is the repeated pivot by trans activists to safety together with a blackmail element.

So we talk about toilets and TRAs throw a hissy fit about how very dare you talk about safety because that's not fair to my gentle mate, who wouldn't hurt a fly. Thus a) dismissing the lived experience of any women with trauma around men and lived experience of any woman who has had a negative experience with a transwoman relating to safety (which we know is happening and we know isn't being reported for various reasons) and b) choses to ignore the dignity and privacy elements for women.

TRAs DO NOT want to talk about b. They have the argument that it breeches the privacy and dignity of transwomen to force them to use the mens, but they do not want to reflect on the impact to privacy and dignity of women caused by males entering their spaces. It's a one sided conversation in a debate which is about equality and how everyone has a right to privacy and dignity.

In these conversations, you see it time and again. Whenever this is pointed out and women start talking about the importance of b, you see a deliberate pivot by TRAs to return to 'how very dare you talk about how transwomen are a threat to safety', because it shifts the conversation. It's a deflection and distraction technique.

Women should be making decisions about what is important to them and what the weasel phrase 'all practical reasons' means, because it's reflective of their lives experience and how it differs from what males see and value.

Every single time I have the conversation about 'well why do women need single sex stuff' and I talk about how it's been useful and really beneficial to me, every single person who has gruffly and indignantly tried to trip me up with it, has gone "you know what you actually have a point there, that's fair and worthwhile" and this is what pisses me off. They don't think about it and it's not something they'd us but it's something of value to others and they get benefits from it. Once they know and have visibility of this, they shift in opinion. But they are happy to throw away stuff they don't know about because it's not on their radar. Worst still they often don't want to have conversations that reveal this type of women's stakeholder position because those conversations in themselves they've already prejudged to be 'transphobic' rather than merely woman centric, because they are a bunch of dicks - often literally a bunch of dicks.

So perhaps for once, get off the pot and actually LISTEN to women rather than trying to blame women for legal issues that are nothing to do with them and to reasons why 'for all practical reasons' is a weasel phrase defined by men for men and not reflective of the world of lived experiences that women have.

Fantastic post, thank you.

The realities of being a woman in society are a million miles away from the reductive and sexist trans fantasy woman.

5128gap · 08/01/2026 08:25

SoftBalletShoes · 08/01/2026 00:05

I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's sports and I also think that only TW who have transitioned socially and medically (via hormones if not surgery) should be allowed in loos and changing rooms. I do not agree with self-ID and I think that a completed transition should be required to get a GC. By that I mostly mean a completed hormonal and social transition. Doesn't have to be surgery.

The GC lobby won't have it, but the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety. It dampens sex drive and gets rid of much muscle, replacing it with fat. (This is according to the "Feminising Therapy" page of The Mayo Clinic, which is the world's no. 1 hospital.)

I do NOT want to share sports or women-only spaces with big hairy regular men. However, I do not perceive any threat from the transitioned women whose photos I'm posting below as examples. They're post-hormones and I would never in a million years know that they were born men. To me, TW like this are as good as women when it comes to deciding who gets to use single spaces.

Where the hate comes in is this: The anti-trans lobby would NOT accept the women below in loos and changing rooms. They would tell them to use the men's, where they would be vulnerable to assault by regular men. I cannot imagine feeling threatened by the women posted below, and you wouldn't have a clue that they had been born men anyway.

Regular men shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces. The TW posted below are not regular men, and to tell them to go to men-only spaces is, in my view, hate. I mean just look at them - it's ridiculous to treat them like regular men and to view them in the same way as regular men.

They are genuine trans women. No bad actor would take all the hormones and make himself look so feminine and have a mastectomy and grow his hair and look SO much like a biological woman simply for the purposes of using the women's loos and changing rooms! To be against TW such as these is hate imo, but it's not hate to want to keep out regular men who want to self-ID into women's spaces.

This is a common sense viewpoint - no to non-transitioned men but yes to TW who are post-transition - but again, the anti-trans lobby won't have it. They are very authoritarian and want to send women like the ones in the photos below back to the men's spaces, and some of them, when you put forward this distinction, attack you for not being as intolerant and extreme as them.

Unfortunately the trans community won't have that either.
Because while to you that seems a solution, many trans women would describe your thoughts as 'hate' too. Because, when you think about it, what are you telling them? That if you can afford treatments and expensive, painful and risky surgery (because you absolutely don't get to look like those photos without ALL of that) plus the good fortune to be pretty with regular features, you deserve to be a woman.
But if you're big built with broad shoulders, a body type that can't be 'feminised' no matter how much E you take, a masculine jaw, if you're older, if surgery isn't suitable for you, if you're not attractive enough, too bad mate, you're in the mens.
In what world would anyone who cared about this minority divide them on the grounds of looks?
Facts are, for anyone who wants equality, be they trans, an ally or simply fair minded, if its one in, its all in. So to let these people in the pictures into women's spaces mean you have to let all transwomen into women's spaces. Even the big hairy blokes. Because to trans people there is no difference. And there isn't to me either.

RedToothBrush · 08/01/2026 08:28

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 07:49

I would really like someone to explain to me why my consent or lack thereof to have men in women’s single sex spaces doesn’t matter.

That’s a real sticking point for me. I - and lots of other women - say no. My firm position is that it is a consent violation. And that taking that consent away weakens the protection given by consent in other areas of law that depend on the same protection. And that is dangerous for women.

it’s the same with the “stealth” argument. That fails not just because they are never in my experience truly stealth, but also because stealthing in intimate relationships is illegal and starting to allow it for access to women’s single sex spaces weakens the protection given by requiring people to be honest about their sex in intimate relationships. Furthermore, the position in the law is that it is still rape even if you didn’t know about it. And a change to any law in this area weakens that protection.

edited for clarity because I am struggling today with trauma due to yesterdays thread and I haven’t had much sleep. Before anyone starts to do laughing emojis at me and telling me to go to specsavers. It actually requires a great deal of mental effort to push through and post (which is why I didn’t participate last night after only a couple of posts). And that’s another thing. Continually fighting to protect women’s rights to single sex spaces is so re-traumatising and tiring.

Edited

But Taztoy, why can't you be kind and stop being transphobic?

Stop being a reductive extremist who is sexist to men and suck it up. You need to accept the middle ground here and allow males who have had unverifiable body modifications into your spaces.

Gender must replace sex in all practical applications as it's safe and it would be mean if we didn't. We can't define gender but hey we should crack on anyway because it's more important and more relevant than sex because I say so. There is nothing sexist about this.

Yeah definitely not an extreme position. Sounds perfectly middling. Why didn't we think of this in the first place?

The outrageous dishonesty about this 'middle ground' concept is one of the biggest lies out there!

NotBadConsidering · 08/01/2026 08:32

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 08:12

Filters on the internet aren’t real Life.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6xlwn570lo.amp

(The article is about a trans identifying man convicted of deception sexual assault who two pics included - one off the internet and one in RL)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65610429

Look how Andrew Miller appears on his Facebook profile photo. Only really stupid people think that the photos of men on the internet are a useful guide to their acceptability into women’s spaces. Or people who want men in women’s spaces and want to pretend filters and manipulation aren’t a thing.

amy george

Man abducted and sexually assaulted schoolgirl while dressed as woman

Andrew Miller, also known as Amy George, sexually assaulted the primary aged girl for 27 hours after taking her to his home.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65610429

5128gap · 08/01/2026 08:54

SoftBalletShoes · 08/01/2026 00:42

Only to extremists at the other end of the argument. I don't deal in extremes.

If you are someone who cares about social justice, you can never be someone who comes up with a solution for a marginalised group you're not part of, hands it down and says either like it, or I'll call you hateful and extreme.
You have to listen to the group you're advocating for and try to meet their needs, not arrogantly take a top down approach based on your own opinions.
If you do this for the trans community, you will see your 'solution' is not a compromise. It's completely discriminatory and unacceptable. If you present your solution to vulnerable women (and many other women who are not vulnerable) you will find the same.
And thereby hangs the dilemma for people supporting people you percieve as marginalised, because you can only resolve this for one group at the expense of the other. So you need to do some soul searching and pick.
For me, that wasn't that difficult as I don't believe men are women and so any needs of TIM should never be resolved in women's spaces. However I see you think that some are, and so you will have a choice to make.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 09:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 09:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Well said.

unconsenting women and girls.

their consent or lack thereof doesn’t matter.

Helleofabore · 08/01/2026 10:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Being a Eunuch is also recognised as a fetish. It is a very desirable state of being for some male people.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:40

Oh wow. Calling a castrated man a eunuch (the correct term) is a deletable offence now?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/eunuch

ETA - bleddy autocorrect changed to a 'delectable offence'. 😱

Talking to non GC people
CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:43

I'll say it again. Eunuchs are not women. Even the ones who are only chemically castrated.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:44

Unconsenting women are not a prize for a man to share nominally 'single sex' spaces with if he is a eunuch.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:44

Letting eunuchs into single sex spaces renders that space mixed sex.

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 10:45

Eunuch is the correct term for a man who has had his testicles removed. Why would that be deleted?

CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:45

Saying that eunuchs are 'women' is not the middle ground. It is a lie.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 10:46

Well. I've laid out my points individually. Let's see what sticks and what doesn't.

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 10:46

If eunuchs are women (because that’s what makes a woman apparently - being chemically or physically castrated) if I get a hysterectomy am I a man?

nicepotoftea · 08/01/2026 10:48

Taztoy · 08/01/2026 10:46

If eunuchs are women (because that’s what makes a woman apparently - being chemically or physically castrated) if I get a hysterectomy am I a man?

And if a man's sexual organs are damaged because of illness or accident, does he become a woman?

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:10

Let's remember that Soft wrote the following:

'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.'

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:13

This section:

'- including a full course of hormone treatment, if not surgery.'

'Hormone treatment' = testosterone blockers and cross sex hormones.
For surgery, remember that orchidectomy is part of vaginoplasty.
Orchidectomy is a fancy word for the removal of the testicles or castration.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:14

So that is chemical and surgical castration that is being described by Soft.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:16

So, Soft is arguing that Eunuchs should be allowed to use female single-sex spaces.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:17

Soft is arguing that this is a 'middle ground'.

CassOle · 08/01/2026 11:17

So we are back to unconsenting women and girls being used as a prize.

5128gap · 08/01/2026 11:24

Soft is arguing that young pretty 'dolls' should be allowed in women's spaces, while being happy for the 'bricks' to remain marginalised.
Soft is 'Truscum' and would be considered as equally hate filled as any GC person.
Soft should probably do some more research.