How do navigate things with older/adult dc who are pro-trans ideology if you are not?

[Fancycrab]

Just wondering those of you who are GC and have teenagers or young adult dc who strongly support trans ideology, how do you navigate this? Do you just agree not to discuss it? Does it ever interfere with your relationship? My DD is still little but her dad, who I’m separated from is very pro trans rights and believes the whole gender ideology bollocks. I worry that he will brainwash DD into believing it too when she’s older and she’ll end up seeing me as the uncool, unprogressive one who just “doesn’t get it” 🙄

Inclusive safeguarding measures exist in other countries. Why is the UK special?

“Inclusive safeguarding measures” belong in the same box as felt motorcycle helmets and chocolate saucepans.

Other countries do things differently; but then they also have horrific gun massacres by trans identifying people men and public inquiries into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

I fail to understand how either of those is caused by trans people as a class.

What on earth does that mean?

How do you safeguard women's single sex spaces while letting men in?

Trans women are women.

No. They aren't. That is objectively false.

We can't have a conversation where one person keeps repeating obviously false statements.

This is one of those conversations where the breach comes so early in the process that most of the argument isn’t really possible to have. Neither in fact or the law are transwomen women, but they are male humans deserving of all the rights that male humans have, plus a specific right not to be treated differently from other men just because they have transitioned.

Liar.

Because the UK didn’t allow activists for male people to make law and policy changes to safeguarding.

However, your point is also somewhat irrelevant. Some countries have the age of consent at 12 too, doesn’t make those countries examples of strong safeguarding. Just because some countries have allowed laws to be changed to allow male people access to female single sex provisions doesn’t mean they are strong safeguarding countries. One of the Australian governments were recently found to have paid a secret settlement to a female who was sexually assaulted in a female prison by a male placed there. Hardly the example of ‘strong safeguarding for female people’ with its inclusive policy.

Nobody has suggested that either of those things is caused by trans people as a class.

Social policies and attitudes in play in other countries lead to undesirable outcomes. We shouldn't copy them.

No one is trying to crowbar men into women's spaces.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Trans people are not responsible for men that pretend to be trans to criminally target women and girls. These men would be criminally targeting women and girls without trans acceptance.

But those men are trans people. By definition of "trans", you cannot pretend to be trans. It's self-id, all the way down. Being trans is only and entirely about saying you are. That's the point. Anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, in trans-world. Acceptance without exception, remember?

It's frankly shocking that you don't see this.

Men pretending to be trans are by definition not trans.

National policies and attitudes in other countries are not responsible for mental illness and violence.

Do you even know anything about what your own so-called "community" says?

People are who they say they are.
If you say you're trans, you're trans.

...were just two of the statements TRAs repeated all over the Internet.

There is no pretending to be trans. By even saying that, you are by definition transphobic.

"That's your belief" incoming

🙄

The context of my statement was provided in my original comment. Separating this out and creating a straw man from it isn't saying anything about trans people.

I don't even identify as trans. I share community with trans people because I experienced a medical diagnosis that was eventually cured through treatment. I am also a member of other groups by virtue of other medical treatment, but thankfully we aren't attacked by small numbers of highly motivated people.

No one nominated me to be official speaker of the trans people. I wasn't elected leader. I am one person with an opinion.

No one nominated me to be official speaker of the trans people. I wasn't elected leader. I am one person with an opinion.

This is a fair point to make. But it's also a straw man argument, because it's not only you and your opinions that we (I should say I, I don't speak for anyone else) take exception to. We are explaining to you what the TRA take on things, the one that has captured the British establishment - or had, until recently. It doesn't really matter what you yourself think. It's what we hear - consistently, loudly, unashamedly - from the Trans "community". Anyone who says they are trans - is trans. Anyone who says they are a woman - is a woman.

You seem to be saying that you were born as a man, are now a woman, but your female identification is genuine and should be accepted. Whereas, you say, other people who were born as a man but now identify as a woman are faking, and should not be accepted.

We - I - don't accept that distinction. Many of your fellow trans people don't accept that distinction either. The distinction that you yourself seek to draw, between "genuine" trans with good intentions and fakers with bad intentions - is irrelevant both to us - to me - and to those who seek to invade women's spaces.

You might feel you're reasonable, "in the middle", whatever. We - I - don't care. We see the people behind you, the ones you're not looking at.

I don't even identify as trans.

We - I - don't care who or what you identify as. It's meaningless. You are a man.

National policies towards women, and about people with mental conditions can do a lot to prevent or ameliorate the consequences of misogyny and dysphoria. Alternatively if they're bad policies they can amplify those consequences. That applies to safeguarding policies as much as it does towards policies in other areas.

So you and everyone you know is pro-GI then? Eg. You believe in gender ideology. You’ve just explained that you’re not ? Anti-GI is the opposite of pro-GI. Pro-GI means you believe gender identity is real, people can change sex, and gender and sex can be different things. Anti-GI means you don’t believe people can change their biological sex, you don’t believe TWAW, and you don’t believe sex and gender can be different. I don’t get why you said no one you know is anti-GI then went on to describe them as anti-GI 🧐 Being anti an ideology doesn’t mean you are anti persons who may identify with that ideology. You’re just anti the ideology

If your DD is little then this will probably br a non-issue. Gender Identity jumped thr shark a few years back and younger generations are not taken in as the recurrent young adults were. Todays teens have not grown up watching "I am Leo" on CBBC and gender identity is off the school curriculum. Men are no longer being allowed in womens sport or changing rooms, and people can't lose their jobs for saying that its impossible to change sex.

By the time your daughter is a teen I think GI will be limited to a small number of people in their late 20s-30s and wll be therefore untrendy.

Im speaking as a secondary school teacher who is seeing the change happening, l also have late teen DC and I have tween/early teen DN and I see thr same thing from that angle too. The younger ones know that the emperor has no clothes.

If youre still worried, the best way to deal with it is to lay strong foundations in your DC early. Don't mention GI but just make sure she knows that boys can play with dolls/girls can play with diggers, there's so such thing as boy and girl personalities, and when she grows up ahe can be a mummy if she likes but not a daddy because only men can ve daddies.

Perhaps because few people live in the world of absolutism.

So, in your opinion, unless someone believes that someone’s subjective reality is the universal material reality they are ‘anti-trans’?

I consider that to be an absolutist position and it is one intrinsically judgemental. Because it is placing a judgment on anyone who doesn’t say that are supportive of people’s identities that are not based on their body’s material reality but on that person’s philosophical belief about their body, being treated as if it is a universal material reality. It is judging those people who don’t share the belief as being hateful.

Yesterday, a judgement was handed down that stated that when a toilet is labelled as being single sex, it is single sex and people from the opposite sex should not be accessing it, do you consider that judge to be ‘anti-trans’? Did that judge hate people with transgender identities?

Are all the media outlets in the world who have pointed out that the shooter in Canada this week was male ‘anti-trans’? That is not ‘supporting’ that teen’s gender identity?

Errr ok Socrates….My brain hurt trying to read that. MN is famously one of the most anti-trans sites on the internet. Note I didn’t say transphobic - the majority don’t hate trans people or wish them harm, but the majority do believe all TW are AGP men and chosen pronouns shouldn’t be respected. Do a poll and you’ll see. I’d call that anti-trans.

OK. Let me try again.

Do you think ‘anti-trans’ is an accurate term?

Can you think of other things where people might not be ‘anti’ something but are described as being ‘anti’?

As an example, is a person who is campaigning for disabled people to have greater numbers of accessible spaces ‘anti-ableist’?

Another way to look at it would be, do you consider woman who want female single sex provisions are ‘anti-male’?

I asked whether you thought the judge who handed down the judgement was ‘anti-trans’ because that fitted your definition, Perhaps you have not considered the term you are using freely and have just seen it used and not thought it through.

Maybe you don’t see the judgement aspect in the term. But the term ‘anti-trans’ is indeed heavily laden with negative judgement towards the people who in the definition ‘Anti-[trans] means you don’t believe people can change their biological sex’.

The background of the term is that it is a made up term designed to shame the woman who campaign for single sex spaces because the term ‘transphobic’ no longer was working to shame people. I am sure there are people out there who haven’t thought about it and will use the term because they see it used in places like the ‘The Guardian’ and even some national media, including some country’s state run media.

That neither makes the term accurate nor non-offensive to the group of people it was created to shame.

To put it bluntly, sure, people can continue to use it after being told its history. It is a free world. But if you arrive on a forum board and ask for support from a group who have had that term used as it was created for - to demonise them, what do you believe your reception is going to be?

Okay, let's start the poll.
I do not believe all TW are AGP
I think chosen pronouns are BS but I tend use them or avoid them around the person in question.

“the majority do believe all TW are AGP men and chosen pronouns shouldn’t be respected”

I don’t believe all TW are AGP men.

I don’t believe pronouns should have to be used to be respected. Edit to add (I also believe that people should make their own fully informed choice about whether to use pronouns and that sometimes there is a need to use preferred pronouns)