Services and spaces should be separated according to gender, not sex

[BackToLurk]

Because that’s the argument isn’t it? If trans rights activists and their allies accept that no one changes sex, then what they are really arguing for is that any separation should actually be made on the basis of gender.

As I’m a helpful sort, I’ve started a whole thread for people to make that argument. Off you go fellas. Bring your brightest. Make your case. I really do want to hear it. (And I’m not, for once, being sarcastic).

You're telling on yourself!

No Idea what you think you mean by this

😂

If I were, I might. But since I'm not and never have done, I can't. I have carried on not being upset about my friends existing since some time in the 1970s, I forget the exact date.

Nasty little boys threatening women with rape and pouring piss all over the place, them I dislike intensely. The existence of trans people, nah. I feel very sorry for many trans people for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is the appalling gits and idiots who have elected themselves as their advocates and make such a remarkably bad job of it.

Maybe this is the fundamental difference in perspective/misunderstanding of equality law!

Agree. It really makes you wince.

A good definition of gender would, of course, allow us to define sub-categories such as cis gender and trans gender without referring to sex

Having ginger hair is recognised
having freckles is recognised
and both are biologically true and real
yet neither needs special accommodations

so why would transgender which is neither biologically true nor real need special accommodations?

let’s be blunt - there are those who believe themselves to be transgender but as it is not physically or biologically possible that belief if genuine has to be linked to mental health issues and yes we should be dealing with those… but like any other mental health issues you deal with the underlying issues not pretend that the symptoms are real - so accommodations for the mental health issues - yes, accommodations for the pretence that a man is a woman? No.

Maybe. The law is silent on whom you can aim services at. Please let's have services aimed at and specializing in serving all imaginible groups, without restriction. But you may not exclude the people whom the service isn't aimed at, if they want to use it.

I think the EHRC uses the example of a hair salon specializing in Afro-caribbean hair styling. That's fine - but they cannot lawfully turn away a white person with long hair who wants dreadlocks.

Contrarywise, a service exclusively for women (legal, in narrow circumstances) absolutely can turn away a man.

I don't think @alcovecupboards understands the difference.

You're most welcome to a service - many many many services! - aimed at women and men-who-identify-as-women; we can all think of lots of these. You just cannot turn away a man who doesn't identify as a woman if he wants to use these services too. Nor should you be able to.

Meanwhile, women's services, when they exist lawfully, will lawfully continue to turn away men (all men) all day long.

This is a nasty little strop which is worth pointing out, and it's indicative of not having a real response to give, one that answer the question.

When GC types here are asked a question, we patiently give (yet) another consistent reply. In fact we fall over ourselves calmly to repeat the same points of law, logic or fact.

There are some posters, not saying who, that I simply skip over because there’s never a substantial argument, there’s never a genuine engagement with other people’s substantial arguments, there is always misattribution and sweeping hyperbole (we all want to deny the existence of trans people, fgs) and that’s it.

These posts tend clog up interesting discussions. Though granted, on this particular thread, @BackToLurk extended an open invite to the genderists.

The thing is, I’ve thought about this, pondered on it, read up on various perspectives and I hesitate to think there’d ever be a solid claim that we should organise society around gender that could stand up. A long time ago @redtoothbrush said, if you can’t talk about sex, you can’t talk about sexism. That still makes sense to me.

I honestly did think that this might provide a space away from other threads for genderists to explain their position. Turns out there’s no substance to it. Sad times.

Absolutely. It's really important we use words properly to articulate issues, concepts and problems in a detailed, sensitive and grown up way.

The Green Party Conference is wild with all the words they are seeking to ban.

It's just a way of stopping people from talking about important issues through language control. It's part of this issue where if you acknowledge a problem, you have to do something about it.

Language control is always a massive warning sign of authoritarianism.

I have to say the news for the past two weeks generally in the uk has deeply alarmed me in what it's omitting and what it's saying. I don't say this lightly but there's huge issues across the board which are not being talked about but we need to. I've said for a long long time we should look for gaps in what's said as much as what's said.

We are headed for multiple crisis rapidly. In this sense I think the green party is very rapidly going to look wildly out of touch with the real world. The real world is going to catch up with a whole bunch of people who have lived very closeted lives and have little experience beyond their safe bubble.

It will not be pretty.

I genuinely fear what's about to happen in terms of massive backlashes and when issues reach critical flash points at this stage which is in part the product to such wilful and deliberate blindness of social problems.

Genuinely vulnerable groups (rather than purely the ones who identify as vulnerable very loudly) are always hit hardest.

You gave them the opportunity @BackToLurk but there’s only ever scolding and telling those who think sex is material and matters (like most of the world) that we are unkind and deny trans existence. Childish arguments.

My own DC are quite pro trans purely on the basis of being kind and inclusive. Any hint of how that might not work out for women tends to be hand waved away. I’m biding my time and make small comments from time to time but I know it’s hard for them to give up, on what they thought was TRSOH.

@RedToothBrush I’ve said recently to my DH, if things got genuinely bad here, how would this sensitive segment of the population cope? Do they have the wherewithal to be resilient? Clips from the socialist party in the US or from the NDP in Canada makes me doubtful.

They'd have to cope. I do think a large number of them would suddenly belt up, because they didn't have a choice. It's one of those where it's all about boundary pushing and seeing how much they can get away with it when it becomes clear there is a hard boundary suddenly they'd deal with it.

They can't cry into their latte if they can't afford one or the coffee shop has closed due to economic conditions.

Hardship and the human instinct to survive actual problems like food, water and shelter have a funny way of sharpening your mind like that. Just ask a single woman with kids about this...

Me also. This is our naïveté. Ever hopeful.

which social groups are based solely around women who date men, and are they genuinely excluding bisexual women and men as members? Or are you just making up garbled nonsense?

Men without property used not have the vote. Men can be raped too. You seem to be advocating for society to go backwards? It’s sad you’re a men’s rights advocate, why do you think women should have no rights to privacy and dignity?

And women WItH property had the vote too pre-1832 so it appears only selective going backwards.

Legislation is not the law????

They are allowed, but they are not allowed to falsely advertise themselves as for women only if they are not.

That’s trans logic for you. Black is white, up is down, exclusive is inclusive, and if you don’t agree, you’re a bigot.

Attempt at a gotcha to discredit women and say what about the men?

What about them? This is the feminist section on MN and a thread about the needs of women which are unique to women which merit special attention.

There is room for discussion about needs of men on the rest of the entire flaming internet.

Lets take these in turn. Presuming that the poster meant they SHOULD be 'single gender'

M/F speed dating events.

So the person is saying these might be single gender thus keeping who out? This includes anyone looking for a partner?

Social groups based solely around women who date men.

So the person is saying that a single gender group would include women who date men and men who say they are women who also want to date men? What is the 'legitimate aim' of such a group that lets this specific group of men in but not for example men who say they are women who date women? Or not women who date women.

Gay only groups exist.

The legitimate aim of a 'single gender' gay only group of gay men and women who say they are men who are attracted to men, that would not be of interest to any bisexual men.

Black women's forum

Genuinely interested in what the legitimate aim of a Black women's forum that included Black women and also Black men who say they are women.

This question has been asked many times, but no answer forth coming.

I will try again.

As a woman, what am I supposed to have in common with a so called ‘transwoman’ that I don’t have in common with any other man?

I can’t think of anything and yet, not only am I supposed to agree that this is a coherent category, I’m also supposed to concede that this is MORE important as a grouping than what I have in common with members of my own sex.

Can anyone shed light on this? Because it’s one of the most ludicrous aspects of this whole ideology.