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?

@financialcareerstuff

I think GC could do more to distinguish between extremists and normal people whose identity has been co-opted in many ways. And that extremists are actually damaging normal trans’ people’s cause.

You're drawing a distinction where there's none. Extremists are normal trans people. The only differences are opinions and vehemence.

There is a huge dissonance in most people’s minds between the trans people they have actually met and the ‘activist/extremist’ campaigners that GC are often talking about when they are fighting their fight for women.

Any average trans person can turn activist at the drop of a hat, as too many women have discovered the hard way.

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.

GC people can't draw a distinction that doesn't exist. Some trans people are very nice, some are arseholes, with all the spectrum in-between, but they are all equally trans.

Similarly, I think better distinction needs to be drawn between trans and cross dressing. When GC people talk about a man ‘sticking a dress on’ not making him a woman, it erases the difference and trivialises a very deeply held feeling of gender disphoria, as something entirely different.

That distinction very officially doesn't exist anymore. Both cross-dressers and gender dysphoric people are equally covered under the trans umbrella. More generally, there's no such thing as a "true trans" person. In particular, it's considered transphobic to require a feeling of gender dysphoria to consider someone trans.

Another distinction I think needs to be drawn more often is the difference between acceptance (which we hopefully all support) and co-opting (which is a big problem)Z I think GC people could make more time to legitimize the existence and concerns of ‘mainstream’ folk who identify as trans and even suggesting solutions for these people, rather than just saying ‘tough luck’.

GC people have been arguing for third spaces for literally years. But TRAs don't want to hear about them, or about any other solution that might be offered.

A 17 year old male family friend earnestly told me and my husband that "there are these awful people who think all trans women are child molesters and shouldn't be in women's toilets, it's so transphobic"

While I was busy choking on my beer, my husband calmly said "If they really think that, then that might be transphobic. But do they really think that, or is that your interpretation?" Which i thought was a bloody good answer and hopefully made earnest teen think a little.

Talking about single sex spaces with some of the family at Christmas was depressing - they still believe that you can only 'get a sex change' if 2 psychiatrists sign off on it' and couldn't seem to understand that de facto self ID means anyone who says they are can access women's spaces. They also thought GRCs were only for those who have had 'the op' and 'there aren't many of them, are there? '

If you believe that then I can understand why you might think people who don't think TWAW are being mean. They can't see what the problem is because their beliefs won't allow them to.

For anyone interested in the science as to why male people are excluded from female sports, including those male people who have a Difference of sex development that led to them being mistakenly categorised as female at birth, here is a thread with the evidence.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1

This thread also has some calculations on just how many female athletes are negatively impacted by one male person's inclusion in a category that they should not be competing in.

It also goes through just what fair competition means, and why male athletes lowering testosterone levels simply don't provide fair competition for female athletes.

It also discusses the many other fallacious arguments that have been put forwards such as the Phelps fallacy etc.

Particular when even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’

cough Upton cough

What current testing do you refer to when you say that a transwoman will pass a test??

Do you mean a testosterone test after a sex test has established that the person is male?

They also thought GRCs were only for those who have had 'the op' and 'there aren't many of them, are there? '

The irony being that their assumption - that a GRC must be dependent on castration - was ruled to be a breach of human rights by the ECtHR.

Which "cis" women?

Because that's not possible.

Or are you using 'cis women' to mean men who were incorrectly registered female at birth?

Can you see the problem with mangling language and changing the meaning of words? We now cannot even have this straightforward discussion without having to try to define what you mean when you use the word woman.

@financialcareerstuff Can't find the original post to quote you, but this stupid out for me in a PP's quote:
GC people could make more time to...

Let me just stop you there sunshine.

I've got enough to bloody do between work, kids, illness, aged parents, other politics, trying to remain somewhat healthy, etc.

Im now having to fight for women's rights all over again because the genderists have decided that I can't even have my own words that describe my sex class and my oppression.

Why the ever loving fuck do you think I should 'make more time' to deal with sad men's hurt feelings just because they can't cope with the reality of their sex?

Fuck that. I'm not their mum.

What 'cis' women?

“So Helleofabore for example values precise logical thinking and has (in my humble opinion, which may be wrong) some degree of impatience with people who haven't yet thought things through.”

Not quite rapid. But ok.

It could be said that I lack patience for people who don’t come across as posting in good faith. I have always been more than happy to have good faith discussions. And answers questions as fully and bluntly honestly as possible.

It could also be said that I aim for precise and accurate language, and I ask many direct questions because I want to understand with greater depth what someone is thinking. And I will run the logic of their posts through my head to work out what is accurate and what is misinformation and where that misinformation might come from.

Well said. And nice Freudian slip (?) by the way!

Too many requests are being made of GC people in that original post. It reminds me of the thread we recently had in which we were told we were not being welcoming enough. That we women wouldn't win people over to the GC 'side' by being unwelcoming to potential converts.

The poster says she wants a conversation if 'anyone can be bothered'. As Helle pointed out (patiently ignoring the dig), we are here. But we don't need to be told what to do.

Ha ha yes, oops, 'stood out' i meant!

Yes it's just all so old isn't it? Not welcoming enough, not nice enough, too shrill, yadda yadda yadda, all criticisms which are never aimed at men.

As if the real crime here is women darng to think and speak for ourselves (which of course, it is).

Keep going. You do us a favour.

@nicepotofteai think you are probably right. Many individual stories are in response to claims things never happen. These claims I would say are idiotic. maybe it is just my very statistical brain….. I have the same instinct when people knock on the door asking for charity donations. They go into this whole thing of asking about my personal experience and telling me about poor Johnny or Jane…. And I just always ask them to jump to the broad facts (which often they don’t know)- both about the issue and about the split of costs and operational approaches in their charity, so I can make a rational decision on what is actually happening and where my money can have the most leverage. I don’t need to be moved about the issue first. I already care about Johnny and Jane. I know what that tactic is about, and it makes me impatient and feel manipulated. But it’s absolutely central to persuasive communication techniques- from politicians’ speeches to charity drives to planet earth documentaries (always zero in first on one individual ‘character’ before extrapolating to concepts or large groups)….. any communication trainer worth their salt will recommend this, so I guess it’s good to do. It Just doesn’t work for my brain and I do think in polarised debates like this one it can become almost like a retaliatory competition, with each side determined to dismiss the concerns and stories of the other. Statistics of course can be used to manipulate too but I feel more agency to dig down and find the information I believe is key.

It's more complicated than is set out in the OPs argument.

When the words "more complicated" are used in this context you can always be entirely certain the person using them hasn't the faintest idea of biology or modern laboratory techniques.

Some sports might use different types of testing..

Sports don't individually get to choose their own definitions of men and women. Those terms have legal meanings within the Equality Act, which permits sex segregation in sport under specific circumstances. And when it permits that, it is only along the legally defined meanings of men and women. There is no room for fudge.

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The point is to obey the laws of this country. It's that simple.

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

1. the rules were changed to include trans women men in women's sport based on stonewall lying about the equality act. No one asked woman if they agreed; how women felt didn't even cross their mind
2. women pushed back extremely hard at personal & financial cost and the rules have been changed back to reflect the law and reality

that someone genuinely can't see that men in women's sports is wrong boggles my mind

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The question is why were the rules changed to let men into women's sports in the first place. What was the point of that?

@Greyskyblueskyand @AstonScrapingsNameChangeI take your point and can see why that’s frustrating (being told to be ‘kind’.) It is certainly a trope we women deal with, and even more women of ethnic minorities. I’m sorry if I added to it. Perhaps I misinterpreted the first post as asking whether there was another option to banging one’s head against a wall with middle of the roaders.

I don’t think I’m asking people to spend more time or in fact be kind, but highlight which tactics would feel less like banging heads against the wall. But I realise it is perhaps all very ‘old’ to those of you who have been at this a long time.

I’ve been working very intensely for the last two years on getting better breast cancer care for women and spreading the word on best ways to self check and advocate for yourself. And yes breast cancer has been around for years, as has pretty decent clear information about it, at least in the uk, and many women don’t help themselves by not going for their scans…. but I do have to remind myself that many people I speak to are thinking and learning about it for the first time. Or they may just come scared, when it finally hits them, personally. And that’s ok. In fact it’s kind of the point.

I’ve learned quite a lot from this thread. But It’s certainly not the most relaxing thing trying to participate in these discussions! It takes courage and something of a hard hat!

@RapidOnsetGenderCriticthank you for sharing your journey- that is quite a way. and I can only imagine how complex it is to reconcile your belief with loved ones in your life who feel differently.

I believe feminism as a whole, in addition to this issue, is a massive journey and I am still traveling for sure……

And I think you are quite right that I may feel more attacked than the intention and that my posts feel more attacking than was my intention too. It ain’t easy feeling in the spotlight! I’ve been posting on Mumsnet for years and never had more than two or three reactions to any post, then boom! 😂 But I think most of us are actually not too fragile on this thread and will be just fine!

If you are after stats on male prisoners with transgender identities, here is some stats that we have gathered @financialcareerstuff .

These are the ones I refered to up thread. Often they are dismissed because some posters demand that we provide them with specific stats for attacks in toilets by this group of male people which is not collected. However, there are cases that have been posted where these attacks have happened and been convicted.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445880-statistics-poll-evidence-archive-thread?reply=149263368&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

The point is though, relying on crime statistics is actually not all that relevant when you consider why female people need single sex toilets and other provisions.

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people.

There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.

-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex provisions and many of the above are directly applicable to toilet provision as well as, of course, other single sex provision.

Hello Hellofabore, thank you for taking the time and offering to link. You are obviously a go to person for fact stuff, which my brain appreciates.

Personally, for me, the ‘proof’ around biological maleness/ femaleness, or the proof that trans people commit crimes is not where I feel I need more evidence. 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.

If you have stuff to hand, I’d appreciate it (and maybe others who are lurking would) But I am perfectly happy to go do my own digging, which is what I normally do when I start to focus on something.

The problem for sport is that because the difference between trans women and men is entirely a self reported feeling, you can't point to a difference between trans women and men in a way that justifies women's sport including the former but not that latter.

Sport is played with the physical body. So if you make the defining factor between men and women mental, you've just removed the jusification for splitting sports into men's and women's in the first place.

This is a great example of why the genderist position is incoherent - because on the one hand it asserts that the definition of "man" and "woman" based on physical sex is wrong, but on the other hand it wants all the existing conventions and in the case of women, resources and protections to stay the same as they are other than including a subset people of the opposite physical sex based on a new better defintion, even though these things only exist in the form they do because they were based on the needs of physical sex groupings.

If we'd never seen men and women as different phyisical sexes, if we'd always used the "better" genderist definitions, then these single-sex provisions trans people want so badly to access would never even exist in the first place.

@Helleofaboreour posts crossed. I didn’t see your last one. Thank you. I will read and absorb.

Just to add to this, Seethlaw.

”GC people have been arguing for third spaces for literally years. But TRAs don't want to hear about them, or about any other solution that might be offered”

I have been on threads where someone who has stated that women should be more moderate in their approach then lists the things that we have been suggesting on FWR and in government consultations for years and years. What often happens is that some posters argue that women on FWR are extremists while then admitting that they agree with most of what women have already been campaigning for. It is a head fuck to see that when it happens on threads. And often it comes down to the fact that we use accurate language and that is considered unkind and immoderate.