feminism or transphobia?

[giraffezoo]

Long time lurker of this forum, first time poster.

I have read through many of the threads on here and I have to say there are lots of views that I find quite shocking.

There almost seems to be two sides of the ‘gender critical’ movement on here that I can see.

The first seems quite reasonable. They wish to have protections in place for women and their rights. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree (e.g. trans folk in toilets, transgender prisoners etc) they are stating a view based on safety and women’s rights.

The second bunch are the ones who I find myself disagreeing with, and who post things that I personally consider as transphobic. Some examples of this would be: refusing to use someone’s pronouns or citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.

I feel that the first group are genuinely feminists who are concerned with women’s rights, and feel as though they need to speak out on their own concerns. The second group are masquerading under the pretence of feminism to say hateful or controversial things.

I am interested to hear other views on this point (and I’m sure there will be a lot here who don’t agree with me!)

From the group amusingly referred to as “un-women” by many no less 😂

Exactly. I’m quite tolerant of people’s wacky beliefs but not having them imposed on me.

Another drive by so soon, you're spoiling us, such entertainment, it's better than telly.

Oh wait no it's not, it's so very boring. 🥱

that was a duplicate post for some reason.

So, instead:

Has it been explained yet why recognising illness as illness is hateful?

Doe that apply to physical as well as mental illness? If I notice that someone has a cold, am I being hateful? Is offering a headache-sufferer a pill 'phobic'?

What if what they preferred to be called something that was, e.g. a racial slur? Something that you found offensive. Would you still go along with it? Genuine question.

If being trans is not an illness, why does it require affirmative treatment in the nhs? You can’t have it both ways. Its either a mental dysphoria illness that requires counselling to address underlying things like sexist mysogynistic parenting, childhood sexual abuse or autogynephilia….. or it’s a perfectly healthy natural state ( and so why does it need treating?).

also how can a man know what it is to feel like a woman? I can’t possibly comprehend what it is to be a man or a dog or a chicken or a lemon. And adding vitamin c to my body doesn’t make me a lemon either.

i am 100% ask for anybody dressing exactly how they want to. I love gender non conformity and anything a bit out of the ordinary. I would absolutely step in and help if I saw a man in a dress being bullied/hurt for his clothing choices and I would do the same for a goth etc. I think it’s takes a huge amount of courage to wear what you want and say “this is me” but I think it’s a cop out to claim to be what you 100% are not and then expect others to accept your new insides rabbit when you couldn’t even accept your own actual real body. It’s non sensical and is just another way for women to be forced come second to men and their needs/wants/wishes.

Some examples of this would be: refusing to use someone’s pronouns or citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.

Oh good, so if I tell you my pronouns are fuck/you, you'd be happy to use them then?

If thinking you're born in the wrong body isn't a mental illness then what is it?

I consider your view to be one that is more of egalitarianism than feminism.

As has already been said on this thread, feminism is about lifting female people (ie. all people with female bodies and not people with male bodies) out of the oppression they have existed under for millennia or more. This requires EQUITABLE solutions where only 'equal' treatment is harmful.

It also means that what we seek is 'equal opportunity' which will require that equitable solution that may or may not be 'equal' treatment.

Female children are naturally part of this type of feminism. And generally feminists will work to make live better for children of any sex as well.

I'm guessing Orwell's 1984 is no longer on the curriculum. It was an excellent explanation of how you curtail people's ability to think certain things, by curtailing the language they have available to them to express those thoughts.

Destroy the language, destroy the ability to think. Calling a man 'a woman' is now doubleplusgood to some people.

A lot of people have become caught up in this generational fad and have been led to believe falsities or to frame their struggles through a 'trans' lens. This includes children, and that is very damaging not only to the. 'trans' child but also to the children around them who have been groomed into going along with the pretence.

There have long been some men who have sought to present as women, some because they are homosexual and at a time or in a family culture in which this is shameful; but also those who are motivated by the sexual fantasy of themselves as female ( known as AGPs) - a fantasy and longing that takes over their life and often destroys their family life too.

People have always rejected stereoptypes and expectations of their sex and have sought culturally appropriate means to do so - but nobody has ever been the opposite sex to that which they are; no matter what they feel, how they imagine themselves or what they have been encouraged to believe.

What are they trying to distract us from this time? The GLP failing again?

The posts using 'cis' are a good reminder that the term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

Using this word, cis, then means there is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes. This has also recently been the basis of the new IOC policy too,

(from the IOC policy:

This is under the definitions section:
Sex: Either of the two categories, Male or Female, into which humans are divided according to their reproductive biology.

Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf )

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

Ooh, has Jolyon had another "win?"

The example of someone wanting to be called Turd...

You honestly wouldn't raise an eyebrow, question their sanity and/or wonder whether they were having you on? You would smile sweetly, say "I honor your request to be called Turd" and go about your daily life not thinking one jot about this person and their choice of name? Maybe that wilful or not wilful ignorance is why you don't understand the pronouns thing.

I'm a woman, and concerned about women's rights, including our need for single sex spaces.
Also, because I'm a woman, I find the idea that a man can 'be a woman', because of a feeling inside his head, incredibly offensive. Being a woman is solely about having a female body, and nothing to do clothes/ hairstyles / femininity or being sexually attractive, and there is NOTHING a man can do to his body to 'transition to a woman'.

I'm also a doctor, and have treated many 'trans' people. The vast majority of these are young people with significant mental health issues, for whom 'being trans' is a symptom of their distress. Some of them are gay, with extreme internalised homophobia. A lot of them have had histories of abuse. And a handful are men with a fetish.

That doctors have given these young people hormones and surgeries that will cause serious harm to their physical health and NOT improve their mental health (in fact, are likely lead to even worse mental health) is the biggest medical scandal in history. Encouraging these young people to believe that they need these treatments, including by pretending they are 'really' the opposite sex and using 'preferred' pronouns, is CRUEL, not kind. Unfortunately universities, schools, politicians, the media, and even the NHS have been under the influence of the pernicious and nonsensical idea of 'gender identity'. Instead of telling these young people the truth, that they can never change their sex, and ensuring they receive the receive the psychological/psychiatric treatments they need to live with their real, authentic, selves, they have been encouraged to pursue a fantasy.

If you think I'm 'extreme' in my views, and 'transphobic', I think you too are under the influence of this strange ideology.

The Times just reported on the ruling, which is apparently legally significant for reasons I don't understand. Thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5514226-court-upholds-ehrc-guidance-on-single-sex-toilets-in-the-workplace

But also, I see a science thread that I want to read, about psychiatric comorbidity rates in transitioners. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5513703-finnish-study-on-transition-and-psychiatric-outcomes-in-sex-and-gender-shows-increased-psychiatric-morbidity

It seems we need a reminder on every thread of this topic at the moment :

No male can ever experience life as a woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman. It can be said that it is their belief in their own personal, subjective reality that doesn't reflect material reality.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.

Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is.

How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, (regardless of if that body produces those gametes) even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid.

Why then should any other person treat one person's subjective reality as if it is their own or society's material reality, including in use of language? If someone chooses to use that language and act as if that person's subjective reality is material reality, that is their choice. However, no person should be coerced into acting in any way as if someone's subjective reality is material reality. It is not 'kind' to do so and it can be collectively harmful to female people and to children.

Absolutely this. Would we treat an anorexic person by telling them they are fat and starving them? No we would not. So why do we treat trans people differently - by pumping them full of the opposite sex hormones and cutting off body parts that they don’t ‘identify’ with. I honestly do not see the difference between the two.

I think it’s a really hard line. Debate ideas freely, but don’t reduce people to something illegitimate or mock them as a group. some comments here do reduce trans people (saying they’re illegitimate, comparing gender identity to lemons). I think morally I know where the line is but it’s really hard to specifically say so.

Maybe this paper can also be an interesting read OP.

WHAT DOES TRANS INCLUSION IN A LIBERAL STATE REQUIRE?

Holly Lawford Smith
January 2026

https://hollylawford-smith.org/what-does-trans-inclusion-in-a-liberal-state-require-pre-print/

Abstract. One of the most prominent minority groups today is trans people. Those who see themselves as fighting for trans rights have tended to take these to include a right to legal recognition by the state, and social treatment by fellow citizens, as the sex of identification. These rights claims have been given substantial legal and institutional uptake. If trans people's full inclusion in public life requires legal recognition and social treatment as the sex of identification, then this is merely a description of things being as they should be. But if trans people's inclusion within the liberal state does not require these things, then this may be a description of a violation of liberal neutrality, the enforcement by the state of a contested and controversial conception of the good; and a tyranny of the majority, the weight of social opinion being pressed against those who want to talk about (what they see as) the fact that things are not as they should be. One way to gain some clarity on whether things are as they should be or not is to carefully consider the principles that liberal democratic states have used to secure the full inclusion in public life of other minority groups, and their application to trans people. I'll consider in particular toleration, collective and individual exemptions, and full accommodation; as they have applied to religious minorities, women, sexual orientation minorities, black people, and people with physical disabilities.

Conclusion

Arguments for adopting, or acting as though we have adopted, trans activist beliefs, in the name of the full inclusion of trans people in public life, appear to have failed. Trans people should be protected from discrimination, but trans activist beliefs are not owed more than toleration. The introduction of trans activist beliefs into law and policy in a liberal state should be just as concerning to us as the introduction of religious beliefs into the same. The insistent social enforcement of trans activist beliefs is a tyranny of the majority, upholding one group's interest in living as it believes it should at the expense of everyone else's interests in living as they believe they should. A liberal state is neutral between competing conceptions of the good; liberal individuals form and pursue their own conceptions of the good, the only constraint being that the pursuit does not harm others (Mill [1859] 1978) or wrongfully set back their interests (Feinberg 1987, Ch. 1). Liberalism does not, and cannot (coherently), require one person's participation (affirmation, validation, acceptance, endorsement, or adoption) in another person's projects. Toleration is required; indifference is sufficient. This is the same conclusion that Francione (2024) reached, just via a route likely to be more satisfying to those sympathetic to the case for trans inclusion.

So, @giraffezoo - you've been pointed in the direction of 'Pronouns are Rohypnol', have you taken the time to read it (it's pretty short, 5 minutes tops) yet?
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

I noticed the Stroop Test link has broken (it is 7 years old now) so try this link:
https://www.focusaur.com/pages/stroop-effect-test
See the difference between dealing with the congruent, and the incongruent.

Perhaps it will help people to sort through this issue of language more.
x.com/knownheretic/status/2016610772164759624?s=46

and this video from Amy Sousa seems pertinent here.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2035857970358272048?s=46

Particularly the comment about if one boundary has been violated by someone why should we trust that person. Just showing they are willing to violate one boundary is a sign we shouldn’t trust that person.

I consider this starts at language as an initial boundary violation.

https://x.com/KnownHeretic/status/1988090968613237131?s=20

Maybe this is useful for people who don't understand how consent works for access to single sex provisions and how if some female people want their male friend to have access, this does not remove the basic standard of consent to be met where if even 1 female user of that provision wants it to be female only, that is where the standard has to be.

Gender critical and proud, and one who doesn't like it that's tough. Here's the bird.

I think this is a useful video in that Amy highlights several important things.

One is the nature of the boundary violations of male people, that even a boundary violation by deception is a significant issue.

But she also highlights the tactics and emotional manipulation that underlie the rhetoric people use to demand that male people are treated as if they are female people.

Remembering of course, that this can only ever be premised from a philosophical position. Because there is no material way for male person to change sex and someone’s feelings of gender dysphoria does not mean that they are materially the sex they want to believe they are.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2006188958586380420?s=46

Once you can strip away the emotionally manipulative language and behaviour, there is no logic or science that supports the demand that male people should be treated as if they are female.

Pronouns are a significant part of these tactics and manipulations.

Why should any male person who so deliberately disrespects female people by entering into a female single sex changing room be respected in any way?

Why should that man have someone contort their language to use neutral or ‘respectful’ language? He has shown that he is fully willing to not respect any female person’s boundaries yet people choose to respect him still.

This really does show the level of conditioning that has already happened by a group of people who demand respect yet don’t respect others.

x.com/knownheretic/status/1937252645267517802?s=46

x.com/knownheretic/status/2006188958586380420?s=46