Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

I remember we had another poster who told us they had that condition. And then he transitioned as a teenager after not having gone through male puberty.

He has become active as an activist and identified. He still can be correctly identified as a male person despite telling us he has never been questioned and had been fully accepted by everyone as female.

I am sure there are some female people who cannot correctly identify the sex category of a male person. However, I don’t believe that a female person will never correctly identify that male person’s sex category. I think it is highly doubtable that these male people ‘pass’ despite telling us confidently that they do.

I have seen too many claims where there has been slow puberty, complete puberty blocking and still that person is identifiable in unfiltered photos as being male. By all means, if you believe a male person’s claim that is your choice. But it would be a mistake to assume that they are not being correctly identified as male even with slow puberty, completely blocked puberty etc etc.

I agree and, for me, it's why passing can never be a factor in whether a person can use female spaces. I mentioned in the last thread that I might not be able to tell if PPW was male, so it might not bother me if he used the same loo I did. It might not trigger my PTSD. (Things that I don't consciously realise can trigger my PTSD, so even if I didn't clock them consciously, it might still trigger it. That is another factor to consider.) But that doesn't mean other women or girls won't spot it. There's no way for anyone to know that.

PPW cannot possibly know if he passes with everyone he knows now and certainly can't know that he will pass with everyone in the future. No one can know that.

It's even sillier to think that it could be the basis for a legal or moral exception.

I think PPW is in a difficult spot, and I do feel for him. But that in no way justifies or excuses him using women's single sex spaces or services.

ah but poly is different you see because reasons.

So you basically believe everything this guy says aye? I mean, are you reading the same thread as everyone else? I guess that's your prerogative but I very much don't agree.

Did you read @Helleofabore's posts on testosterone differences in male and female children? Did you read the bit about male children having physical advantages before puberty? Even if he is short and slight, he still has physical advantages over women because he was born male.

Did you also miss the bit where he admitted that he actually did go through puberty? He's now saying he was given oestrogen "mid-way" through puberty. So he didn't have puberty blocked at all.

He's in his 40's and has been taking hormones since he was "mid-way" through puberty. That's not 40 years of hormones.

It doesn't matter anyway because...
No amount of years on hormones makes you female!
He's not female, he doesn't belong in female spaces.

When he started his hormones etc, yes I agree there wasn't the same social contagion side of things, however you go on to say
"It was not externally promoted and reinforced for him to behave as a woman"

You don't know that! He says his family was very supportive, but we don't know what his life was actually like, or what the family dynamic was, or anything else. What we do know is that he was a little boy who is gay during the 80's or 90's, so it's very likely that he had to deal with general homophobia, at least.

"I don't think he is anything much like the majority of the female identified trans people who we are battling to keep out of female spaces."

Trans identified males is the normal way of saying that. It's far less confusing and states clearly the actual sex of the person, which is very important at times, especially when women are trying to keep trans identified males from colonising everything set aside for female people.

The bottom line is that this guy is not a woman. He is male, not female. He does not belong in female spaces. He knows that, just as he knows he'd be breaking the law and causing problems for a lot of women.

He intends to do it anyway, and he doesn't give two shits how actual women feel about that, remember?

So you basically believe everything this guy says aye? I mean, are you reading the same thread as everyone else? I guess that's your prerogative but I very much don't agree.

I am very much able to hold a discussion on the basis of what is said while also realising it may not be the truth.

I don't really see the point of joining any discussion on any thread if you simply reject everything the other side says as lies.

You could say I have a healthy dose of scepticism, but he has literally lied! It's not just my perception of his words, he's completely backtracked and contradicted himself.

Add to that the heavy misrepresentation and the using words in ways contrary to normal usage in order to bolster his point.

I don't see how that adds up to truthful? But apparently you do, and don't want to discuss anything else I said in my post.

Like I said, that's your perogative.

"Female identified trans people" for TiMs🙄They're men!

Did you look at the TERF is a slur website btw? Still think "women are beoming as verbally aggressive" as TRAs?

"Female identified trans people" for TiMs🙄They're men!

There are plenty of men who are not female identified trans peoplr.

Since you are now deciding to attack me instead of the subject matter, I'm out of this discussion.

Ok fine, take issue with how I'm saying what I'm saying, and don't deal with the points I'm making.

The fact remains that even "short gay men in long term relationships" are not women (bit sexist and homophobic if you ask me), they are male, and therefore like all other males, trans identified or not, they don't belong in female single sex spaces.

"There are plenty of men who are not female identified trans peoplr."

Trans identified male is a descriptor for men who have a trans identity, it already discounts all other males who don't.
Most people call them "transwomen", which is deliberately confusing. I think "female identified trans person" is just as confusing and for the same reasons "transwoman" is. Why use "female identified trans person" instead of the more usual TW or TiM? Bit weird?

Trans identified male (or MALE, MAN, BLOKE, DUDE, GUY!) is much more accurately descriptive of those male people.

@Imdunfer FWIW I think we should be able to point out the inherent homophobia in statements that essentially say small gay men aren't real men (and that they are basically the same as women), and even show a little frustration with other posters at times, without it being construed as an attack.

It's a bit of a damaging idea when you dig in to it really. A small gay man isn't any less of a man for being gay, or for being shorter or slighter than average. Women are not the same as small men. Women's needs differ from those of men.

I haven't said anything about your intent, I haven't called you names. I'm sure you aren't actually a homophobe, I just pointed out that the statement is essentially a homophobic one.

As for the rest, well I am interested how you can say you are "willing to believe" what PPW posts (and that you think he's very different from other TiMs, and not representative of TRAs) but then when I point out he's lied (a lot!) you say you can "hold a discussion on the basis of what is said while also realising it may not be the truth".

I'm also still interested in why you would use "female identified trans person" instead of TW or TiM. It's a really weird way of saying it, from both the TRA and GC side of the fence. From my perspective it seems like a conscious choice which might be used to underline a false connection between the female sex and trans identifying men, but I'm sure that wasn't really your intention?

Edited to add that it's a little exhausting always having to edit yourself to avoid causing offense, don't you think?

FWIW I think we should be able to point out the inherent homophobia in statements that essentially say small gay men aren't real men (and that they are basically the same as women), and even show a little frustration with other posters at times, without it being construed as an attack.
It's a bit of a damaging idea when you dig in to it really. A small gay man isn't any less of a man for being gay, or for being shorter or slighter than average. Women are not the same as small men. Women's needs differ from those of men. - @CohensDiamondTeeth

I agree it's homophobic. It's also inherently extremely misogynistic. It pushes the idea that if a man isn't successful at being a bloke, he's a woman. How on earth could anything be more misogynistic than that?

A failed man is not a woman. A failed man can't choose to be a woman/girl as a consolation prize or his automatic right as a man/boy. It triggers the fuck out of me.

eta - tagged CohensDiamondTeeth

I see we’re back to deleting posts that too clearly state what drives these men.

They are allowed to post about invading female spaces but we can’t talk about why they do it.

There is an incoherence in describing an issue with language where a male person is claiming any word that is used uniquely for female people and then using a female reference in describing them.

‘transwoman’, ‘identifies as a woman’ and ‘female identified’ are all terms that then use female language to describe a male person. This brings a degree of confusion due to the inaccurate reference. I also assume that some or most of the time it is being used as a politeness. Or it is at least used to not distress the person who has demanded it (even asking someone to use it, or not correcting that person’s perception, is a form of demand) .

There is a need to cut through any confusion in these discussions and I, personally, have learned it cuts down on needing further clarification to remove any female language in the reference to these
male people.

And I agree that my use of ‘male people’ is also seen as being problematic for many people too, however, I also use that language so my posts are not deleted for using the word man. I also use it to cut through emotionally laden wrapping of terms. I, personally, don’t want to get into endless discussions about being cruel or disrespectful.

Also, once I saw that people like McKinnon / Ivy, Upton and a evergrowing number of male people have stated ‘people use female language for me, ( including they use the word woman or female) therefore it is cruel to exclude me’ enough times, I realised that these words are being used to harm women.

I still remember that the poll that was done by MBM

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Around one third of the polled respondents didn’t know that a ‘transwoman’ referred to a male person.

Language is important for clear discussion.

I think women are responding to both language that obfuscates accuracy and some of the conceptual ambiguity that ends up causing female people harm on this thread.

I consider using female language for a male person as demanded to be those male people still attempting to emotionally manipulate others to accept that they somehow should be allowed to access female single sex provisions.

It is like this argument that one male person who says he is slightly built and short is somehow harmless particularly if some women didn’t notice him.

I consider that an incoherent argument from the start because it is an argument where the outcome of that argument is that some male people above the age of about 8 years old can bypass safeguarding principles. Because one person made the decision based on their personal limitations.

It is also a version of the ‘what they don’t know can’t hurt them’.

It also relies 100% that NO female people can accurately and correctly identify that male person as being male. Which is not likely to be true. (and again I point out that there are now young male people and male people in their 40s who have stated they have had puberty blockers from the start of puberty and one I referred to yesterday who stated he too had a delayed puberty and even in photos those male people are recognisably male people).

Someone making a declaration that one male person is harmless and assuming not one female person will correctly identify that male person’s sex category is effectively acting in a way that contradicts female people’s consent when you really analyse the outcome of statements such as that. The argument doesn’t hold either when you look at the childhood testosterone exposure and the foundational knowledge that not all medication will work 100%. The claim about no androgenisation ato all in puberty relies on 100% of that produced testosterone being aromatised.

I would like to see the evidence that 100% of testosterone produced will have been 100% aromisatised.

Otherwise it is a statement that lacks any credibility. Yet some
people, more than one person, choose to believe that claim. Why?

A male person making that claim is being believed when he has made many statements that are very clearly untrue.

I think being aware of empathy traps that cause incoherence to leak into arguments to weaken them is something we should all be conscious of.

I try really hard not to get drawn into the arguments from the point of view of it’s simple. There’s no point in debating because the individuals arent coming at this in good faith. They want to weaken protections for women and girls.

Also, this isnt womens problem to solve. We don’t have to expand the definition of womanhood. It’s fine as it is.

finally, these men all lie. It is fundamentally all built on a lie. And that means that I don’t believe anything else that they say.

Yes, exactly Taz.

In the words of Sall Grover: 'If someone will lie about something so obvious—like women having a penis—they will lie about anything'

One of the significant issues with one individual’s dismissal of a male person as ‘harmless’ based on nothing but say so is, how has that been decided? Who has measured that male person’s physical advantage ?

Who has measured what % of testosterone was aromatised / blocked / produced or not produced?

Any person making an arbitrary statement based on size of a male and that male person’s self reported testosterone status is not basing that statement on anything but what they want to be true. Why? Is is because they want to believe it?

I think the IOC have adopted the correct standard for determining who is female

either

absence of the SRY gene

or

"With the rare exception of athletes with a diagnosis of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) or other rare differences/disorders in sex development (DSDs) who do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone, no athlete with an SRY-positive screen is eligible for competition in the female category at an IOC event."

Either you have no androgenization or you're a man/boy. End of. For the Olympics or for EA2010

IMO it's pointless to try to draw any other line.

Agree.

Because all this back and forths about who is female enough not to be a risk or threat is meaningless because it literally requires someone to arbitrate who has had enough testosterone exposure and how it has been used to make a meaningful decision.

The end result is always a personal arbitration ‘I don’t think person x will cause any harm’. Based on no evidence at all.

How is that any different from anyone declaring ‘my friend would never cause anyone harm, he should be allowed into female single sex provisions’? It is no different in my opinion. It is an individual making an arbitrary decision based on fuck all information and likely because they wish to reduce a male person’s distress at having to take responsibility for his decisions and actions.

In other words, that arbitration is based on emotional reasoning.

I don't expect you to. But this need to preface any reference to a fairly common belief (we can debate the exact extent, but not the truth of that at least) with "gender critical", apparently to reduce it to something rather more "niche" and politicised, does suggest a certain insecurity in your convictions.

I am at a disadvantage, because I didn't give my life much thought before this. Here, I am being forced not only to understand the gender critical position and beliefs, the beliefs of what they refer to as trans ideology and also try to come up to speed on how the trans 'community' works today.

I agree my assumptions about the beliefs of those people who are not invested in this argument are likely inaccurate to a degree. I have a few close friends from before my transition and parents/brother/etc. I couldn't say the last time anyone who knew me 'before' raised trans issues with me, but it would have been around my surgery.

My husband and I were visiting my parents following the holidays last winter, while Trump's post election anti-trans declarations were top and centre on CNN, which was in the background. It was difficult for me to avoid paying attention to the coverage. I don't know what I was expecting, but I thought they would have at least acknowledged the news while I was in the room, but conversation about other random things continued unaffected. It may not be fair, but I don't believe anyone but gender critical people and trans people care about this topic enough for it to genuinely 'matter' to them.

...you're suggesting there is some kind of predominant "rule" or pattern here - yet offer no example of this, let alone one that outweighs my biological example above. In fact, I'd argue that the sheer, expansive variety of women's subjective experiences globally and historically, and the impossibility of meaningfully circumscribing this actually disproves the existence of any rule - it makes it impossible to generalise one. I don't know what you'd say because you stay so resolutely away from telling us.

I'm referring to social construction. Culture doesn't separate out individuals for 'special treatment' to the degree trans people or gender critical people apparently believe. We are all floating in the same ocean and currents divide us based on the power structures in place, not to an idealised personally navigated pattern. I think I am agreeing with you, and with many others, but because of gender critical beliefs, I am not permitted to own my experience in this space. I suspect if there were a third party here, providing a narrative of my life, their personal observations would also be continually proscribed.

One exception to your tendency to avoid the general in favour of the individual is when you can make a safely inarguable statement like this, and I do see it as another form of avoidance...This, however, may give the lie to the tomayto/tomahto or chicken-and-egg suggestion that what matters most is social behaviours and perceptions, not biological reality - or, at least, that they matter as much as each other. Because one, regrettably but indisputably, came first.

My transition was very biological. I was seeking embodiment, not a social role. The social role was the price I paid to embody myself as a woman. The criteria have changed several times since I went through the process. But in the 80s, it was filtering people who weren't seeking medical, sex-based treatment for anatomic dysphoria. I am in a place where I live a paradox every day of my life. I do see that the creation and enforcement of gender is based on sex, but experientially prove that there is no actual requirement for 'sex' in the gender critical sense, to drive the process. Biology matters, but it doesn't.

So, as I say above, what came first? What was/is paramount? A knowledge of female biology was necessary to this assumption. The societal and cultural associations followed.

In my personal life? There is no reference point in my biology. To women as a class, which includes me? Everything.

...I think it would be fairly easy to argue that the casual, courteous use of "woman" and "she" for trans-identifying males didn't "diminish the first definition" back then. But to claim that it still doesn't, in a context of countries - plural - engaging in extensive public debate and actual courtroom battles over these conflicting definitions, is patently absurd...

I've said previously that I believe the UK is unique amongst countries in the way it has structured its human rights laws. I believe the mess that we are in now will continue until there is a restructuring. I would probably be more concerned if there were a resolute direction in legislation and law. But, with the hate and questionable motivations I've seen applied in the recently declared culture war, I'm less concerned until clarity is reached.

In so far as FWR and gender critical beliefs go, the attempts to recontextualise my life as a 'man' or 'gay' continue without a real reference to cultural or social forces (or even personal relationships). My husband joined me on a trip to Qatar once. If the gender critical beliefs were reality, our experience would have been much different.

For what it's worth, I think I've said before but it's maybe time to add again, I do have a lot of sympathy for - and interest in - your position. I would, in the past, have given you "woman" and "she" quite willingly. But now? It's the posts like yours defending why we should continue to make this sacrifice that convince me that we can't afford to. Your arguments just don't seem to address ours - maybe not even to hear them. And how can women possibly hope to be heard better if we give up the only word with which we may distinguish ourselves?

This is another angle on the FWR ‘consent argument.' In reality, pronouns and genders aren’t ‘given’ to anyone. Maybe in a context of 'trans acceptance?' But that isn't a place I've ever been.

I don't have a gender identity. I can't say I understand what having a gender identity is like unless I try to tie it to biology and my body and how I am treated as a member of a gender. I cannot explore anything further than that on FWR because the basic reality of my life is denied a reference point.

You define being a woman as a feeling.

I don't.

You've never felt what being a woman is because you cannot transport yourself into a woman's body to find out.

I know how I exist within culture and society. I experience relationships with others as a person. I have empathy to understand to the best of my ability how others are treated in society. I know what it feels like to be me.

I haven't experienced a period, or pregnancy. I haven't been a father. I've never looked over a crowd of people and thought 'gee i'm tall.' I've never been a non-trans person. No, I don't know what it feels like.

And although I have a lot of sympathy for your own situation, I despise the fact that you can see, but don't care, that your support for people who think they are women to have access to female only spaces (of all kinds) supports men who think they are women but are very obviously men to deny women their legal rights.

Those aren't my thoughts or beliefs.

You are a very intelligent person, clearly. I think it is a great shame that you choose to use that intelligence against the very sex that you believe yourself to be.

It's difficult to be recognised supporting a group when that group's representatives attack you like a virus.

You're not being 'forced' to understand anything, you are choosing to be here and post.