What TRAs or 'gender' advocates and 'gender critical' feminists agree on.

[WrongKindOfFeminist]

Thought it might be useful to find points of commonality.

Ever the optimist! 😊

1. Gender stereotypes can be restrictive and limiting.

If men are treated worse because of perceived 'femininity', how did trans rights take over every institution?

Female describes someone's sex.

Femininity describes how well someone conforms to stereotypes ascribed to the female sex

I'd personally add: like any issue like this, there are going to be extreme/unpleasant voices on either side of the issue that will be waved around as bad-faith 'representatives' of the entire group.

Although I tried to make that argument recently and got shouted down by those very same voices. Almost like forums and social media simply aren't the best medium for reasonable discussion and actively push people to be more inflamatory.

For example this: I don't think tarring all transpeople with the same brush as the worst of them does anyone any favours, and only toxifies the debate further.

Pretending they don't exist doesn't help either.

And the debate will be toxic for as long as one side will be free to threaten violence against the other.

Amnesty International labeling womens groups as anti rights is an indication of where the middle sits.

Organisation are willing to claim that women only support for victims of sexual violence are anti rights, knowing how that will be perceived and the abuse that could result.

I don't think Amnesty have represented the middle for a while.

Who are the middle ground - the TRA who we should look at to represent the true feelings of trans people?

We have to work on the basis of 'the worst possible outcome' in all safeguarding scenarios.

It's about preventing failure.

We have an observable group actively and openly campaigning to harm women's only provisions and advocating violence as a means to do this.

At this point, they effectively prove the concerns women had all along are completely valid.

There is no other position at this point.

I think I misunderstood - I was referring to the general public.

I don't know about "who", but what about "what"? What would be a middle ground position? All I can think of is advocating for additional third (well, fourth, really) spaces. So far, nobody's advocating for it, and the TRAs, who should be the ones pushing for it, don't even want to hear about it. So I guess that answers the "who" as well: nobody.

Another issue is that the 'no debate' line makes it very difficult to engage with anyone.

Brexit might have been very contentious, but we could at least acknowledge that the choice was between remaining in the EU or leaving.

With this issue, just agreeing the terms to be discussed seems impossible, at least outside the courts.

I get that the general public arent anywhere near AI, I was talking about who we should ignore as extreme on the TRA and who we should listen to.

AI is an organisation that shouldnt be extremists and similar to trolls on Internet.

Its like MPs, they are either signing letters saying we should tear up the recent guidance, or they are pretending nothing is happening.

I dont see any TRA groups who are acknowledging the importance of sex and are organising accordingly. Its either sex is irrelevant or single sex spaces are anti rights.

Planning for the worst case is how safeguarding works.

Just with Brexit there are truths that are unreconcilable which can not be ignored.

For Brexit it was Northern Ireland - which I correctly identified BEFORE the vote.

For GI it's that biology is real and exists and that women have a legitimate need for things to be organised along the lines of biological sex for some scenarios.

These are unchanging and unchangeable with deep and significant harms being done. They aren't up for negotiation as a result.

Quite.

And single sex rights are actively enshrined into law. They were enshrined into law for GOOD reason. These reasons have not ceased to exist despite many people trying to claim they have.

Yet, although many ignored the existence of NI, it wasn't taboo to mention the border or the Troubles or the Good Friday Agreement.

I don't know if it's possible to have a discussion that acknowledges the impact of sex. Who would one be talking to?

ETA: except a judge? There have been many complaints about GCs using law fare, but what other forum is there?

Yes, but there are also pretty significant obstacles facing transpeople; they're more at risk of violent crime and there is a genuine crisis WRT medical care for them.

And before any whataboutism which I'm sure is going to be thrown; yes, there is a minority of violent transpeople - that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the majority of non-violent transpeople who are at higher risk.

Similarly, the lack of medical care (doctors not knowing how to care for transpeople) does bear some similarity to medical misogyny. I'd hope that there's some commonality there.

I think it's the whole 'sympathy vs empathy' argument which is overlooked in a lot of internet discussions; disagreeing with TRAs can lead some GC people to bury their head in the sand about issues that transpeople do face - when I brought them up in another thread I was immediately met with a chorus of "Well, what do you want me to do about it?", as if acknowledging a problem is the same as demanding an answer.

You'd have to bury your head in the sand to ignore the fact that transpeople do get harassment, e.g. on the street, and I can understand that that may make them more jumpy; in the same way that catcalling when I was younger made me wary of all men, I can see how everyday harassment could make transpeople at least somewhat wary of more extreme GCs. It certainly doesn't excuse the actions of violent TRAs, and it's not conducive to discussion because it does make commonality seem less achievable on both sides.

I'm not claiming that there's an answer here, but I do think that polarisation on extreme ends of the spectrum, particularly on social media, is one of the biggest barriers to having any kind of civilised discussion.

The UK governance system is built on the three pillars of democracy. These are the people, the courts and the law makers.

Each holds the other to account and prevents over reach and over plays of power.

We are seeing the workings of democracy and equality in action with how things have played out in the UK.

Free speech is one of the things central to this.

When parts of the public have over reached and misrepresented the law the courts have corrected. When politicians have misrepresented the law the public (and media) have had them to account. The politicians can no change the law because there is no public support for such a change, thus the courts can not go beyond where the law now stands.

It's working.

There are lots of people who don't like it working. They are a threat to Equality and Democratic process.

I see them for what they are as much as I see aggressive men in dresses for what they are.

@nicepotoftea
Another issue is that the 'no debate' line makes it very difficult to engage with anyone.

I'm sure I'm going to get all sort of flames that'll prove my point here, but I think acting as if TRAs are the only ones who invoke 'no debate' is a bit disingenuous.

When I've brought stuff like that up before, I get all sort of replies saying that GCs 'aren't a monolith' (which, obviously I agree with), then treating all transpeople (read: transpeople, not TRAs) as a monolith. I suppose this is the polarisation I've been trying to illustrate.

N.b. That's not to disagree with @nicepotoftea! I think you're absolutely correct about the 'no debate' extremists, and that they are a far bigger impediment to the debate.

I think Brexit is a v good parallel to draw, with both sides sketching the other at their most cartoonishly extreme (e.g. Violent Racists vs. Woolly Hippies) which only seeks to widen divides. It's a symptom of these discussions taking place so often online instead of in-person; it's as if the person has to represent their entire 'side' of the debate instead of just their own personal viewpont.

Yes, but there are also pretty significant obstacles facing transpeople; they're more at risk of violent crime and there is a genuine crisis WRT medical care for them.

Yes. But how is that women's problem?

Similarly, the lack of medical care (doctors not knowing how to care for transpeople) does bear some similarity to medical misogyny. I'd hope that there's some commonality there.

Sure, but again, how is that women's problem?

I can see how everyday harassment could make transpeople at least somewhat wary of more extreme GCs.

Erm, what? You've got this the wrong way around. It's GC women who had to go to court to defend their rights, while trans people are free to threaten violence on GC women. So if anyone is right to be wary, it's GC women.

I do think that polarisation on extreme ends of the spectrum,

Only one side of the spectrum is polarised. Women here are open to discussion with TRAs, while any GC person trying to discuss with trans people in their places will immediately be banned.

What TRAs or 'gender' advocates and
'gender critical' feminists agree on:

Toilets for mixed sex use have to be private from floor to ceiling.

(Apart from a few men who want women’s toilets to stay how they are).

"Yes. But how is that women's problem?"

This is exactly what I meant by this

"when I brought them up in another thread I was immediately met with a chorus of "Well, what do you want me to do about it?", as if acknowledging a problem is the same as demanding an answer."

In no way am I suggesting that this is women's problem. Raising a point is not the same as demanding an answer.