Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

[Pyjamatimenow]

Friend of mine has posted on her social media ( a very long detailed post) that basically trans rights are women’s rights and that what she sees as transphobia is akin to people who ‘punish’ women who don’t fit into gender stereotypes, don’t get married, don’t look ‘feminine’, don’t have children…Says she’s a feminist and defends the rights of trans women to live safely etc …whatever that means. Cis women mentioned several times. I don’t normally comment on these kinds of things on FB but struggling with this particular post! If I were to say something what would you say?

"Biology is absolutely being used to prevent trans people from being included in their associated psychological sex class."

Because their "associated psychological sex class"is not a thing that exists in reality (unlike Islam). It's just a socially constructed bundle of stereotypes. There's nothing real for them to be included in. It's just an assigned gender role.

One's sex is defined entirely and solely by one's biology. There is no clearly delineated psychology associated with one's sex, and to argue that there is, is sexist.

What a nasty, bitter post. You really show your agenda here and undermine your argument ( as poor as it is)

I love that glasses are now a signifier of feminity. DH will be pleased. 😁

The facts proving gendered choices beg to differ.

https://theconversation.com/sex-differences-dont-disappear-as-a-countrys-equality-develops-sometimes-they-become-stronger-222932

*Feminine styled glasses.

Them frameless one's don't get in the way of 'glam'.

I haven't read that article, but my immediate response is to say that no one would expect sex differences to disappear as equality develops. Why would they? In fact as woman's equality progresses, the pressure to reinforce both sex differences and gender distinctions often becomes more pronounced as the patriarchy fights a rearguard action. "Ladies, you want to be corporate lawyers? Fine, but if you want to remain sexy and powerful, you better grow your hair long and wear high heels."

By sex differences, I am assuming you means the socially approved norms of gender expression? Science has pretty conclusively proved there is no meaningful difference in functionality between brains from male skulls and brains from female skulls.

What has that got to do with your body though? Do men and women in prison who have to wear the same thing no longer have a gender? Are they non binary?

I haven't read that article, but my immediate response is to say that no one would expect sex differences to disappear as equality develops. Why would they? In fact as woman's equality progresses, the pressure to reinforce both sex differences and gender distinctions often becomes more pronounced as the patriarchy fights a rearguard action. "Ladies, you want to be corporate lawyers? Fine, but if you want to remain sexy and powerful, you better grow your hair long and wear high heels."

Straws, grasp.

Them frameless one's don't get in the way of 'glam'.

Associated psychological sex class.

What the chuntering fuck does any of this mean?

I think mammals are going to continue to reproduce sexually for at least a few more years!

We will always need equality legislation that protects against sex discrimination because of the physical differences between men and women, and women will always have to fight to protect rights that men don't need.

The biggest flaw in this narrative article is it assumes better living conditions means greater equality.

Howse ooops sorry Bailey still twuntering on with their inane AI bullshit

mumsnet is your actual mum you silly boy and we don't have to either listen to or humour you

I missed the bit about 'psychological sex class'.

We don't divide people into 'psychological class'. Real life is not Hogwarts.

Does categorising by "associated psychological sex class" mean putting mentally ill trans identifying females onto male psychiatric wards, to be immediately cornered and gang-raped by men?

Glasses Direct have 14 rimless options in their mens range. So not really a feminine coded item. (Thankfully as my prescription is to too thick for rimless so I would hate to think this was another area in which men can woman better than me).

You mean we don't have the Sorting Knickers?

I am disappoint.

Bailey's entire premise is a nonsense. I admire the many articulate and patient posters who are engaging with him.

Self determination is not and has never been the basis of feminism. Material reality isn't something feminism seeks to wave away as irrelevant. Our sex and what that means is at the very core of feminism.

Effeminate men 'suddenly' don't exist now? Wasn't that a GC talking point that they do & shouldn't be 'erased'?

Straws, grasp.

Of course non masculine men exist but surely in your world if they choose rimless glasses (to allow the 'glam') they magically become women? Or are you contradicting yourself by claiming men who choose feminine coded (in your strange opinion) items are actually still men after all and not so almost women that they should be regarded as women.

I have a meeting about to start but I look forward to finding out later how liking feminine stuff makes men women but also absolutely doesn't.

Biology is absolutely being used to prevent trans people from being included in their associated psychological sex class.

That's fucking hilarious. Damn that bigoted biology, not allowing badly dressed, pouting men in fishnets to actually BE women.

I wouldn't mind, and I can't work out if he believes it from Bailey's posts, because let's face it, he's not the best communicator in the world, but even if there was such a thing as a psychological sex class, trans identified men remain firmly shackled to the male one.

Disregarding women's consent and threatening them with rape for non-compliance is not exactly 'Women's Psychology 101', is it? 😄

I have to say, we've seen quite a few men argue like Bailey. Probably are Bailey, in fact. But there have been others too.

They do seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to find a premise for being accepted as women that they can claim is logical and infallible.

Biology, reproductive function, anatomy, all obviously a complete no go. So we've got data points, miasma, constellations, and now a psychological sex class.

It's as stupid as the original claims that well I've got long hair and I wear a dress.

What really quite profound psychological issue do these men have, that this is how they spend their time?

Judging by Bailey's thinly concealed fury with women, I'm guessing he doesn't believe it himself, either.

Sticking it to women seems to be the dominant goal. That and gaining their attention.

The troubling part is quite how many of them there are.

Hilarious! A sex class is, by definition, biological. It can be nothing else.

The beliefs in people’s heads are another matter entirely, and not something we can sensibly organise single sex spaces around.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, and all that....

Really, I like composing the responses as they help me to sort out my own thoughts.

The decree about frameless glasses does make me chuckle though.

I'm imagining Genderists getting a weekly update of the latest items classifed as Feminine or Masculine, like the latest Abominations Unto Nuggan that turn up at the back of the Borogrovian Books or Laws every week or so, the incoherent ramblings of a senile god.

"From this week on, the following shall be considered inviolately feminine:

• Frameless Glasses
• Beets
• The Colour Ochre
• Senior Accountancy Quaifications
• Any Music Composed by a Latvian
• The Programming Language Rust

And the following shall be considered inviolately masculine:

• Pine Furniture
• Lasagne
• Gravel Paths
• Small Hatchback Cars
• Holidays in France
• String

The following have been removed from gender cataegory and may now be considered entirely gender neutral:

• Ankle socks
• Dicken's Novels
• Taylor Swift (the music)
• Taylor Swift (the person)
• Pingpong

Glory unto Butler"