Page 3 | Talking to non GC people

Sausagenbacon · 2026-01-05T08:13:22+00:00

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?

Hoardasurass · 05/01/2026 11:36

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:21

Utterly irrelevant. My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody. It is the correct use when quoting text that contains an error.

As to whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that a wrong opinion should never be challenged simply because of a characteristic of the person espousing it? Do you?

Edited

Show quote history

No she pointing out that your pointing out my grammatical mistakes due to my dyslexia in the way you have makes you look like a complete condescending dick.
Hope that helps

potpourree · 05/01/2026 11:41

Some studies on AGP in those links too. Seems like a bit of an obsession for some.

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:44

Hoardasurass · 05/01/2026 11:36

No she pointing out that your pointing out my grammatical mistakes due to my dyslexia in the way you have makes you look like a complete condescending dick.
Hope that helps

Show quote history

You are in error, which you'd know if you'd read my response to her.

I stated very clearly that "My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody" and that "whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant."

That she misinterpreted it as an attack is an understandable mistake and one that required the clarification I gave. The fact that, even with that clarification, you have continued to assert the same reflects badly on you, not on me.

FranticFrankie · 05/01/2026 11:45

I think this poster is familiar; I am sure I've read this style of posting before, with the same arguments

GC ideology indeed.

Seethlaw · 05/01/2026 11:46

potpourree · 05/01/2026 11:31

@Seethlaw thanks for contributing from a trans viewpoint.

And of course, if you can shed any light on how the findings of
"Sex-specific mouse liver gene expression: genome-wide analysis of developmental changes from pre-pubertal period to young adulthood" have revolutionised your life, I'd love to hear it

I've tried to figure out what this paper is about, but that's too advanced mouse biology for me! I'm not sure why @QuickJadeFinch included it in the list.

As far as I know, mice don't have genders. Are there cases of female mice acting like male mice, or vice versa? Now that would be interesting to me!

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:47

FranticFrankie · 05/01/2026 11:45

I think this poster is familiar; I am sure I've read this style of posting before, with the same arguments

GC ideology indeed.

Indeed.

RatWrangler · 05/01/2026 11:49

This reply has been deleted

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

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:51

RatWrangler · 05/01/2026 11:49

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

Show quote history

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

5128gap · 05/01/2026 11:51

@Quickjadefinch could you maybe make the case for the benefit to society in general and women in particular (as this is a feminist board) for allowing people to participate in sport and uses single sex spaces designed for the opposite sex?
Because whether gender identity is a real scientific thing or not, doesn't to me make a great deal of difference to how we manage spaces and activities where biological sex matters.
I think separating people on the grounds of sex for sport, and allowing women to have spaces where they can be away from male people if they choose is important, and I would need to see a very strong argument that dispensing with such was more beneficial to women than not.
Do you have one?

Tooobvious · 05/01/2026 11:53

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:44

You are in error, which you'd know if you'd read my response to her.

I stated very clearly that "My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody" and that "whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant."

That she misinterpreted it as an attack is an understandable mistake and one that required the clarification I gave. The fact that, even with that clarification, you have continued to assert the same reflects badly on you, not on me.

Show quote history

No. Something being "automatic" (by which I assume you mean you do it without thinking enough about it, rather than your computer does it for you) is not a defence. Context is important, and what is acceptable and correct in academic writing may well be jarring and unnecessarily pedantic and unkind on a forum like this.

CassOle · 05/01/2026 11:54

Quick is coming across as really creepy in their latest posts.

BettyBooper · 05/01/2026 11:55

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:51

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

Show quote history

🤨

BettyBooper · 05/01/2026 11:56

CassOle · 05/01/2026 11:54

Quick is coming across as really creepy in their latest posts.

My thoughts exactly!

FranticFrankie · 05/01/2026 11:56

Edit; I should have written GC "ideology" indeed
Not that it is an actual ideology as QJF seems to assume in their reply to me

Tooobvious · 05/01/2026 11:57

RatWrangler · 05/01/2026 11:49

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

Show quote history

Wow! Well spotted.
@QuickJadeFinch's response to you doesn’t deny it so presumably she hadn’t even followed the links herself.

BettyBooper · 05/01/2026 11:59

Tooobvious · 05/01/2026 11:57

Wow! Well spotted.
@QuickJadeFinch's response to you doesn’t deny it so presumably she hadn’t even followed the links herself.

Show quote history

I don't think clicking on those links is a good plan tbh...

Greyskybluesky · 05/01/2026 12:00

Another timewaster who can't engage properly

slug · 05/01/2026 12:04

Just to get back to the original topic.... I tend to lean into the "Be Kind" bit. e.g. "Is depriving women of sporting opportunities kind?" or "Is locking up rapists with women who have suffered sexual assault kind?" or "Is steralizing predominantly gay and neuro diverse children kind?" "Id letting men who pretend to be women speak for actual women kind?" Eventually you get around to the point that the kindness is only going in one direction, towards the historically privilidged males.

BonfireLady · 05/01/2026 12:04

Seethlaw · 05/01/2026 11:13

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

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 percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople 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.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?

Show quote history

💪❤️

I was recently having a conversation with a "mum friend". She and I have different views on gender identity (she believes everyone has one, I don't) but we had lots of common ground on the harms associated with this belief (obviously she saw it as factual - but was interested in the notion I didn't).

Most of our conversation was about children. Where we differed primarily was that she thinks some children are true trans and need to be given an opportunity to understand themselves through this lens. We didn't come to any conclusion either way on who was "right" and I have no idea if the conversation will take us that way. However, she was very clear that she was worried about anyone - not just children - altering their body permanently if there was a chance that they may change their mind.

I did nudge her towards MN as a way to explore her thoughts if she wanted to do so, particularly as she also seems interested in women's rights. She's now read some threads but I don't know if it'll be something she wants to continue doing.

I hope it's not too trite to say but I really enjoy your contributions on this board. We get told we're in a echo chamber by a lot of ploppers, but we're clearly not. If a transman and a non-believer like me can have interesting discussions without tearing strips off each other, it's a pretty good indication that it's not!

TBH I think most IRL conversations end up finding common ground. Not always, obviously. I've been, and remain, on the receiving end of some uncomfortable conversations and situations.

But, to pull it back to the OP, there are some obvious areas of common ground that pretty much every person (who didn't have a motive driving them differently) would likely agree on if they could find an opportunity to do so. Sport and prisons are two. Harm to vulnerable children is another.

nicepotoftea · 05/01/2026 12:13

OP, I think you are just going to have to get comfortable banging your head against a brick wall.

Women will always have to fight for their rights, simply because men don't need them and they usually make men's lives more uncomfortable.

Hoardasurass · 05/01/2026 12:21

QuickJadeFinch · 05/01/2026 11:44

You are in error, which you'd know if you'd read my response to her.

I stated very clearly that "My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody" and that "whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant."

That she misinterpreted it as an attack is an understandable mistake and one that required the clarification I gave. The fact that, even with that clarification, you have continued to assert the same reflects badly on you, not on me.

Show quote history

I'm not in error I am mearly explaining what @Greyskybluesky was pointing out and how it makes you look regardless of what you claim as an excuse for your behaviour

nicepotoftea · 05/01/2026 12:23

Seethlaw · 05/01/2026 11:13

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

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 percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople 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.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?

Show quote history

I think that the gender critical argument is that it's perfectly normal not to identify with the expectations of your birth sex, and that nobody needs to self-identify in that way. It's the basis of feminism.

The societal expectation that one should conform to gender expectations is the problem.

An individual may struggle with body dysmorphia to such an extent that it is a mental illness, but the problem is the body dysmorphia, not that they are the wrong sex.

ThatZanyFatball · 05/01/2026 12:29

Calling people hateful bigots and murderers, shouting people down and talking/singing over them at public meetings, physically intimidating them at demonstrations, doxxing and canceling them/demanding they get fired from their jobs, and sending them death threats are all pretty unpleasant behaviors at least IMHO.

BonfireLady · 05/01/2026 12:31

RatWrangler · 05/01/2026 11:49

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

Show quote history

Just seen this - I scrolled up.

Either these links were posted in good faith and/or some just didn't work as expected.... or not.

Do you remember if any went straight to a pdf?

Regarding internet safety (and clicking on pdfs) this is a concerning conversation exchange from above:

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

BettyBooper · 05/01/2026 12:37

BonfireLady · 05/01/2026 12:31

Just seen this - I scrolled up.

Either these links were posted in good faith and/or some just didn't work as expected.... or not.

Do you remember if any went straight to a pdf?

Regarding internet safety (and clicking on pdfs) this is a concerning conversation exchange from above:

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

Show quote history

Well, yes.

Especially from a poster who is (allegedly) so deeply and bigly academic that they 'automatically' correct another poster's spellings when quoting them...