How explain trans ideology to inclusivity trained friend

[Whatnown]

Hello, I’m trying to explain all the trans stuff to friends without sounding nuts. I’ve explained that it’s not a rebellious youth thing, it’s from blokes in frocks who own some big pharma companies and want big profits, also men in frocks who want their fetishes normalised, also men in frocks who want to perve, also confused young people who are being told their normal curiosity means they must be trans. But I’m doubting how measured I sound, and it sounds a bit mad if you are speaking to a cynical friend that has had inclusivity training.

gCan anyone recommend links to anything that explains all this for the dubious and cynical? I have sent her the link to the actual essay by jk Rowling https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
other suggestions helpful!
im sure I can’t be the first to ask this, maybe the results could be pinned at the top of the thread like on several other threads?
thank you!

I raised it because it’s part of Helen Joyce’s argument in Trans, which another poster said was what had made them feel frightened about trans people.

Yes, I read your post. That's how I know you raised it.

Because of how male people use others for their arousal.

A couple of examples are female people being referred to using correct sex language doesn’t involve controlling any person to validate a subjective belief, it is based on material reality. Also, female people don’t tend to use being in correct single sex provisions as an arousal tool and there isn’t a growing porn category where female people are masturbating in female single sex provisions listening to female people’s toilet sounds.

You have said, earlier:

"But worth noting that there is some evidence that autogynaephillia is not just something that occurs for trans people." Ergo it occurs for trans people.

You also referred to my "misinterpretation of normal aspects of embodied human sexuality" in the context of my description of this as a fetish.

It's quite clear you accept autogynephilia as a normal aspect of human sexuality that occurs for trans people. Not just for them - but does not escape them.

Neither you nor I can reasonably put forward the idea that this fetish is left on the peg outside the women's toilet when a trans-identifying man chooses to enter. And I've described the mechanism by which women using the same facility are unwillingly engaged in the fetish in enough detail.

So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask if you're comfortable with giving to any men who wish to do so the opportunity to dress as women and further their sexual fetish, should they have one, by interacting as women, with women, in women's facilities and spaces.

Do you want to try dodging the question a third (or is it a fourth) time?

Well you will have noticed the poster I responded to was SPECIFICALLY worried about ‘porn saturation’ and creepiness, so I responded to the bits of the book she raised that I think most try to paint people as creepy.

I don’t think people are JUST their sexuality or erotic responses or however you want to describe them. It is perfectly reasonable to me to assume that people can go about their day to day lives - including going to the loo at work or at the shops or whatever - without most of the day having anything about their sexuality or fetishes. I think it’s most probable that if you see a trans woman in the loo, she probably needed the loo.

I don't think people are JUST their sexuality or erotic responses either. But I don't think people are ENTIRELY NOT their erotic responses.

Where people have fetishes, they sometimes act on them. Not all people, but some. And some men will engineer their lives in ways that allow them to further their unusual sexual appetites more easily, including telling the most obnoxious lies.

There is no evidence to suggest that claiming womanhood is in any way a step too far and beyond what some men will do. We don't need to examine whether this re-engineering of a life is in some way genuine, somehow fake, or what even genuine or fake mean in this context. If donning the cloak of womanhood is a mechanism to further a fetish that some men have, some men will do so.

You may be happy giving to any men who wish to do so the opportunity to dress as women and further their sexual fetish, should they have one, by interacting as women, with women, in women's facilities and spaces, because (it's reasonable to say) only some men will do so.

I don't agree.

The creationist and evolutionary asserriotion biology defining phycological behavior is naive to the point of absurdity. Human consciousness is uniquely aware of its surroundings and the limitations of perception places the nterpretation of external sensory stimuli. If all men were aggressive potential rapists for whom a women are simply chattels whose sole purpose is reproductive on nature. Then society would be on a darkly violent path to self destruction.
Diversity creates adaptability and promotes survival by promoting cooperation and empathy.
It wasn't untill early 20th and WW1 that women gained the freedom to seek independent employment, to travel away from their residence. The so called "Uinary leash" was only lifted as consequence of WW1 and the wartime labour shortage.
I do feel that the today's feminists have forgotten is how hard the fight for today's freedoms from the endemic misogynist male domination of the 20th and 19th centuries was. Why are we throwing the hard won victories of equality back into misogyny by vilifying and victimising minorities in same way all women were historically treated.
Traditional native cultures like those of North American natives recognise the concept that a person's inner spirit may not align with the physicality of their bodies. Before water closets and indoor plumbing toilets were a simply hole in ground dug some distance away from the main dwelling. They generally dug once for to use everyone in community. Indeed Roman and Greek public bathing facilities of antiquity were communal! Why today's obsession with segregation?

@TheLemonMember are you on some kind of stream-of-consciousness-inducing substance?

I just want my kids to be okay and if they are in a class where they can't speak their mind in a reasonable way that really worries me.
I think we should be extremely cautious about putting ideas into children's minds and sending hem down roads of medicalisation. 500 women under the age of 25 a year are having their breasts removed by the NHS I heard Dr Louise Irvine say when being interviewed by Stella O'Malley.
Since reading Helen Joyce's book I have listened to many interviews with her an I find her a very impressive and thoughtful and rigorous person.
I have also listened to many other interviews including those hosted by Trans groups. I found all the arguments on that side to be just about the personal and nothing about what is in the best interests of everyone. My main interest is in children so when I hear that Lia Thomas was getting changed in the changing room sometimes with groups of five year olds whose parents didn't know that was happening I find that worrisome. Particularly in a world influenced by porn where lots of young men are being taken down some very dark paths. It isn't that an individual is necessary going to be dangerous but rather that this is clearly a diminishment of child safeguarding.
I have very little sympathy with any argument that is about personal 'empowerment' or spending a lot of time thinking about one's appearance and looking in the mirror. That is a feature of today's world that I think is generally damaging to individuals and society.
I have listened to/read many stories from parents with kids who are identifying as trans on the Genspect website and on Julie in Genderland. I have listened to detransitioner's stories on Gender:A Wider Lens.
My persuasion about the social contagion element is not only from Joyce's book but from talking to many people since reading it that I meet on dog walks and it is amazing how many people have personal cases where a bunch of girls in a particular class all decided they were actually boys.

When I went to the library and picked up Helen Joyce's book I also picked up David Baddiel's book 'Jews Don't Count' because I am very concerned about the pro Hitler and Holocaust denial messages children in Ireland are getting. I am very concerned but the idea that Helen Joyce is antisemitic is stooping pretty low.
I am very grateful to her for all the work she has done to make things better for women and children in the UK. Hopefully some of that safeguarding, which she has helped claw back in the UK, will spread to Ireland.

Because most societies in the past were sexist, and when women were leered at, harassed and worse, in mixed bathing and toileting facilities, they were just expected to suck it up.

It was women here who fought to have toilets for women, it wasn't men "segregating" them (an unnecessarily emotive word, making false analogies with enforced racial segregation).

In places like India where the fight continues, they still understand the need for separate facilities at times when women are exposed and vulnerable. Foolish, privileged women in the West seem to be forgetting what happens if you don't have them. Perhaps the increasing instance of spy cameras being planted in mixed facilities, and the subsequent appearance of footage on the internet, will be a wake-up call.

Men who identify as their idea of what a woman is, are still men.

“I think it’s most probable that if you see a trans woman in the loo, she probably needed the loo.”

So why can that male person use the single sex provisions designated to their sex category or find an alternative solution if they reject using their single sex provision?

Female people have a wider range of toilet needs than male people and a female single sex provision specifically provides for those. Any male person’s presence (over about 8 years old) will limit how female people use a female toilet and likely exclude some female people.

It is irrelevant whether the male person just ‘needed the loo’. They cause harm by accessing female single sex provisions whatever their motivation.

Not sure what the first part of your post was intended to mean.

However, you do seem to not understand safeguarding principles. Safeguarding principles which have led to sex segregated publicly accessible provisions do indeed depend on treating all male people over about 8 years old as “If all men were aggressive potential rapists”.

The principles do this because no female person should have to be in the position to do an instant in-depth risk assessment on whether the male person in front of her is one of those male people of any gender identity who will physically attack her or abuse her in any other way or not.

Your examples about small communities and how they would toilet before modern toilets existed seems to completely ignore the fact that they were small communities compared to the public amenity throughput of today. It is a slight variation of ‘every one has a gender neutral toilet in their house’ flawed argument.

“Acknowledging that Joyce could have shown more sensitivity / awareness when she chose her examples if she didn’t want to contribute to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories wouldn’t take anything away from your gender critical beliefs.”

So, she is to blame that you and others choose to take such bad faith interpretations of her work where she used commonly used language?

Righto.

Certainly reads like it.

Has your friend ever read 1984? Especially the section at the end where Orwell explains how Newspeak works.

Modern trans ideology is essentially language-based. If you define your terms in a non-circular and reality-based way, the ideology falls apart. This is why 'what is a woman' became such a crazy thing.

From this thread, take AGP (autogynophile) as an example. If you define this in a precise way: 'biological males who are sexually aroused by the idea of being or becoming female', this is immediately something that a biological female cannot experience, as she is not male. The concept is specifically about being aroused by the thought of being the opposite sex. She could be AAP (autoandrophile): 'biological females who are sexually aroused by the idea of being or becoming male.'

If you use the more woolly, AGP is 'being aroused by the thought of having a female body, or being aroused and you actually have a female body.' You can see that the claim is that an actual female person and a male person (with a specific fantasy) do not experience sexual arousal differently. The physicality of being female or male is reduced to being irrelevant. The thought in a man's head carries that same weight as a woman's experience of being female. Think about how sexist this is.

The active avoidance of useful and clear definitions is a feature. If you don't have the language to say that male and female people are biologically different and that humans cannot change sex, then you cannot defend keeping male people out of single-sex spaces for female people.

RE Eddie Izzard - A good question is 'where have all the transvestites gone?'

The quote Simone De Beuvior and John Paul Sayre "Existence proceeds essence'. We just show up in the world. We are not born with a pre-written manual, fate, or human blueprint. That by experience and selective preference.

We are not born with a pre-written manual, fate, or human blueprint.

Is that a reference to de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, published in 1949? The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953, earning the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for Francis Crick and James Watson in 1962.

If look the the setup segregated facilities did not exist all when they were introduced to meet femands equality and were when women recieved the vote. Prior to thay facilities that did not exist at all which why the term "urinary leash" was coined by the suffragette movement!

I have complied a list of arguments that are used by TRA when discussing access to single sex spaces.

1. Transwomen aren't the problem; men are
2. It's only a small number of people
3. They are not harming you, so be quiet
4. Transwomen ARE women
5. Just be kind
6. I am just trying to be my authentic self- by changing everything about me
7. You are obsessed with people's genitals
8. Free Palestine

Working class women who went out to work still had to manage somehow. Like women in other countries had, and still have, to manage without facilities for women, and be at risk out in the open. Middle-class women who didn't work were stuck on the "urinary leash". Women-only toilets were an improvement for all of them.

Safeguarding is a false argument for the exclusion trans individuals using spaces that aren't defined as being a refuge. Forcing who outwardly looks like a man or a woman but biologically one is exposing the gery abuse you seek to prevent. The spent by "For Women Scotland" would far better spent funding women only refuges intend turning the clock back to the 1970s. The they opposed has specific safeguards for single sex refuges.
If you check history of public toilets and the suffrage movement, bathing other facilities were exclusively male untill the early 20th century. That why the early suffragette movement coined the term "urinary lease".
Safeguarding victims by providing safe refuge was never a problem beyond the general lack such spaces the spent by running into random public toilet or changing room as a means of excaping abuse is neither likely or even practical as means protection. Primarily because most abuse occurs in the privacy of the home or is perpetrated by people in positions of trust
It far more important readily accessible accommodation like hotels have policies in place the protect the privacy of guests and that children can seek shelter away from the source of abuse.

From statement you asserting entiity of human existence is defined by DNA alone. That cognitive development is both predetermined and immutable.

It is inherently flawed logic infer such determinism. Genetically Indentical twins might look and even sound the same but will have different personalities even though shared experiences.

Telling women what they should be focusing on and directing them on how they should be spending their money can be considered misogynistic.

However, your point is important, but in highlighting one reason why more funding is needed in the provision of rape crisis. To pay for legal action against them to provide female single sex care.

Considering a woman in Scotland also had to spend money to expose the issue of the policies which failed to single sex appropriate deliver care to female people by the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, your post really doesn’t seem to highlight the issue in quite the way you intended.

The centre had a policy of dishonestly telling those who questioned the sex category of the person giving them support that the centre ‘“does not have any men on their volunteer team”. This was in response to anyone questioning whether the female support provider who was non binary was female or male when they had asked for a female care provider. The counsellor, Roz Adams pointed out that the policy was harmful to the female people needing care.

The policies were, of course, enforced by the male person who not only applied for and was accepted in a role designated as being for female people. Who was also on the volunteer team as well, despite having little experience in counselling rape victims. We even had a poster here confirm this when she told us she had been ‘counselled’ by him.

That male counsellor announced in a interview that any female person who questioned a male person with a transgender identity’s sex category, would be educated to not be a bigot and to accept male people were female people if the male person said so.

He also famously said

“But I think the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices, because how can you heal from trauma and build a new relationship with your trauma, because you can’t forget, and you can’t go back to life before traumatic incident or traumatic incidents. And some of us never, ever had a life before traumatic incidents. But if you have to reframe your trauma, I think it is important as part of that reframing, having a more positive relationship with it, where it becomes a story that empowers you and allows you to go and do other more beautiful things with your life, you also have to rethink your relationship with prejudice. Otherwise, you can’t really, in my view, recover from trauma and I think that’s a very important message that I am often discussing with my colleagues that in various places. Because you know, to me, therapy is political, and it isn’t always seen as that.”

Because of the number of female people in Edinburgh and the surrounding area who started to exclude themselves from care knowing Wadhwa was there and enforcing those policies, Bieras Place was opened. Specifically providing female only care to female people. No gaslighting or ambiguous answers to direct questions about the sex category of support givers there.

Then there was also the Brighton rape crisis centre where a female person was denied care because she asked for a female only support group. That case was settled before court after the FWS decision.

But, according to you, FWS funding should have been better spent on giving money to rape crisis centres for care to female people…

you actually make them sound half reasonable, lmao. often times they just call you a terf/racist/facist/transphobe/bigot, whatever and seem to think it's an argument.