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.

Or if men did object to women using male toilets it was for exactly the same reason women did - it would have been humiliating and potentially dangerous for women to use the existing male toilets.

I keep saying this because anything else I say will be attacked as 'wrong' and/or 'invalid.' The FWR power dynamic ensures that my beliefs are not fairly treated or respected by more than a few regular responders (who have done this from day dot.)

I understand the cultural differences between men and women. I am even aware of the biological differences between men and women. I've lived a relatively long enough time to have experience with this. I personally disagree with the gender critical definition because of the life I have lived.

The societal beliefs about 'sex' and 'gender' are not aligned with gender critical beliefs because cultures demonstrably do not enforce them as gender critical people would if they had the ability to do so.

Decades of UK equality law legislation makes it clear that you are wrong.

(Not sure which country you come from. As has been discussed other countries such as Australia and the US are rather regressive when it comes to equality law).

Sex is not a belief, societal or otherwise.

1. That doesn't answer my question about conflicting beliefs. I find your non-reply quite insulting actually.
2. Your belief that "societal beliefs about sex and gender are not aligned with gender critical belief" does not line up with my observations and experience. I cannot support your statement here, it reads to me like simple wishful thinking. Consider: if you believe that society does not expect women to be physically female, why is it such a cornerstone to your belief that you are a woman because the people you meet take you to be such? Surely (and assuming for this post you are a reliable narrator) this in itself betrays your own knowledge that you are only accepted as "a woman" in day to day life because those you meet are assuming you are female?

Regression would by definition require some level of progressiveness prior.

Ok - less advanced, more sexist.

Your definition of male is also a belief

Crikey. The definitions of the words male and female are not ‘beliefs’. When I take my cat to the vet, the vet refers to the cat as ‘he’, even though the cat has no testicles or penis (both were removed). The cat’s record states that it is male. ‘Male’ doesn’t have a different meaning at the vets to other contexts. It means the same thing everywhere.

If the definitions of words meant whatever the person using them wanted them to mean, we would never get anything done and meaningful conversation would be impossible. (See Humpty Dumpty)

As far as I'm aware, trans people have never received any wide-ranging, unquestioned public support in any modern culture. Gender critical people deny their status as an identifiable group with unique experiences and existence independent of sex, so cannot discuss them other than as grouped in with the other 99.??% of people.

There is no existence independent of your sex, what are you talking about?

...aaaaand this is your belief.

Can assure you I was concerned when a transwoman masturbated in front of me in the ladies, around 1996.

Trans people have always been here.

You are correct. The progress in women's rights and the condition of woman in Australia was suddenly thrown into reverse in 2013 when sex was replaced by gender in law.

Well unless you are floating around unattached to a human body, it's a fact.

I am happy to concede that a ghost no longer has a sex.

Ephemeral essence of trans we did in the summer didn’t we? Internal cognition? Trauma trumps? It’s not my consent that matters it’s the intent of my rapist.

I'm not.😂

Jacob Marley was definitely male he barged into a space where he wasn't wanted.

I certainly agree that people who identify as trans exist.

If trans includes Darren Meagher, who just changed the marker on his driving licence, it's very difficult for trans people to explain why they are 'an identifiable group with unique experiences and existence independent of sex'. However, that is not my responsibility.

I just need to protect sex based rights, and to do that I have to be able to explain what sex is.

I don't need sex based rights because of my identity or because of how I present. I need sex based rights because of the material consequences of being a human female.

I'm a gamete fundamentalist.

This is not true.

No person in female clothes who was obviously a man would have been accepted in a women's loo when I was younger. He would have been thrown out on his ear.

As a broad shouldered tall woman with short hair who wore a dark coloured trouser suit Monday to Friday I was regularly questioned when I was younger.

That is a misreading/misrepresentation of the Gender Critical position.

We 100% recognise trans people as an identifiable group with unique experiences and existence independent of sex. In fact as people with gendered experiences that do not align with their physical sex they are very much expected and understood within Gender Critical Feminism (or as we used to call it when Woman simply meant female, "Feminism") and were it not for the current aggressive de-existing of the female voice we face from TRAs, would even be supported by Gender Critical Feminism as fellow escapees from rigid gender roles.

The only point of contention is that we simply do not believe this thing that is not sex and is independent of sex is somehow also magically the same as sex, is what sex always meant really, and is unproblematically interchangeable with sex for all social, legal and political purposes.

As feminists, we experience the demand to shackle our sex to your "gender" as the exact opposite of empowering. We see empowerment as entirely separating these ideas of gender from our physical sex not tieing them even harder together.

Your position therefore is what I would describe as Gender Absolutist - you require that Gender must not only exist as well as sex, but must in all things override and take over from sex.

And where this is not physically possible you require we must nevertheless pretend it is, even to the degree that we no longer even need names for the two human sexes, because what possible need could we have for them?

You're perilously close to saying an incorporeal being can self-identify according to his mind-sex. I would prefer to say its behaviour was a consequence of his male socialisation in life.

Edit: with the rise of AI this point may not remain entirely academic.

And how did doctors ever have the authority to do that?

They didn't.