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).

As the other thread filled up, bumping this so we can get that explanation of which services and spaces should be separated by gender rather than sex. Looking forward to it.

Very much looking forward to understanding how this is supposed to work in practice.

I wouldn't expect much more than further exhortations to be "curious".

Also we need to know what the characteristics of gender are.

For example would it literally be 'round necks versus v necks'? Or 'skirts versus trousers'?

Some guidance would help.

It's the people with niche gender identities I feel sorry for. Even the keenest TRAs aren't clamouring to build neutrois or demiboy bathrooms. And yet as we all know, using a space that doesn't match your gender identity is literally impossible.

Yet curiosity won't change the law or the EHRC guidelines, so with no explanation of how policies and legislation should be changed, you have to wonder whether some posters/organisations/unions/MPs are sincere in their claims that the current law is unworkable.

What you're hearing is the sound of desperation as the opportunities for those intent on exploiting boundaries - especially those of women and girls - are reducing daily.
Hence all the wails of "oh nooo, the SC judgment didn't really mean that women & girls can have single sex changing rooms for ... reasons... 😂

It’s baffling that posters are given the opportunity to outline how their system would work and what the benefits would be, yet don’t take it. Baffling.

Indeed @BackToLurk
Where are our usual interruptarons?

I think it is because there is this gaslighting foundation to it all. The gaslighting that the sex categories based on human body formation around reproductive outcomes (ie gamete production to be clear) is a belief and not material reality and scientifically proven. That instead that human sex can be based on anything else. Which is a belief.

The gaslighting is that material reality is subjective therefore those with the belief that some male people really can be female should be considered as having a valid point. When all they have is a philosophical belief about material reality that is not ever going to be proven to be accurate.

Then the gaslighting continues with the dismissal and denial that allowing male people to refer to themselves as female in any way has no negative impact on female people or on the language female people use to describe themselves.

The result is those who believe in pseudo science feel the rest of society must consider that pseudo science to be an accurate representation of material reality.

I think their best and most common argument is the “well the spaces are segregated by gender and not sex already because you can’t tell/ask people what sex they are.” That’s why they always bring up “trans men” and always have some unlikely story about a woman being abused in a woman’s toilet because of people like us.

Which either suggests that you can exclude people because they are the wrong gender, which would drive a coach and horses through the concepts of self ID and gender fluidity, and sex discrimination law; or that nobody cares, in which case why are they segregated in the first place?

I think theres an assumption that a diagnosis of GD is more than a diagnosis that the individual is uncomfortable with their body or gender. That the diagnosis goes one step further and means that the individual is, in some way, their desired sex.

Maybe personality, and after drugs, surgery or clothes, they become so close to the desired sex it is unreasonable not to include them in sss.

In addition, there is an argument that sss are a relic and not needed.

Meaning the importance of single sex spaces is diminished and the line between the sexes is blurred. Its up to the individual where they fall, if anywhere.

The single sex space becomes gendered by default? And doesnt need defining because its about the individuals comfort, not societies expectations.

It’s an absolutely ludicrous position.

No one can even define what gender means.

What are women supposed to have in common with ‘transwomen’ anyway, that they don’t have in common with other men? It’s an utterly incoherent category.

No one suggesting it will even attempt to explain how it would work in practice.

Exactly. It’s their best argument, that doesn’t mean it’s a good one.

There is a thread in Site Stuff addressing this very issue.
This board is not just for supporting or promoting women's sex based rights. It is not just for those who are 'gender critical'. It is for anyone, including TRA's and 'gender identitarians' or whatever they call themselves. It is for anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of sex and gender in the context of feminism.

To quote MN's official answer
The board is there to discuss sex and gender in the context of feminism and women’s rights. People with a wide range of views are welcome to contribute, including those who disagree with the prevailing view on a particular thread. There’s no requirement to be gender critical, or to subscribe to any other position, to take part and we have many users on both sides of the debate who regularly contribute.
The intention has always been to make room for discussion between people with different perspectives, and that includes questioning and challenging each other’s arguments.
We introduced the separate board following requests from many users who wanted more room to discuss other aspects of feminism alongside the discussions about sex and gender.

This argument of course is rubbish, because until the trans "it's unforgivably transphobic to ask if we have retained our male genitals" schtick was introduced, it was always perfectly fine to enquire which sex someone was if they seemed to be walking into what might be (for example) the wrong public lavatory, both to protect the men or women already in that lavatory from embarrassment and to save the individual from making an embarrassing mistake.

Strangely., not a single person that I ever heard of died of shame because they'd been asked whether they really wanted to go into the ladies/gents.

And women being abused in a women's public lavatory is because of the transwomen, not because of reaction against them. If such women exist. I do know a not-terribly-butch lesbian who has several times now been asked if she is in the right loo; she says "yes, I'm a woman" and that's the end of it, nobody abuses her; but she's a little sensitive about her looks and finds it slightly upsetting. Not, obviously, genocidal or any other hyperbolic nonsense, but something she doesn't really like and which had never happened to her before the trans nonsense started.

It’s entirely the fault of trans rights activism that women think there may be men in female spaces.

Exactly. It's like some people don't realise this.
But actually, I don't blame people who genuinely haven't realised this yet.
When did we start really questioning who was in our spaces?
Is the timing a coincidence?
Hmmm....

Did we get a definition of 'gender' yet?

Will we ever? be real.

Oh my sweet summer child.

I have my own definition that I have shared many times on these boards

A societal stereotype snapshot of each sex.

i.e. what a man is stereotyped like in 2026 / what a woman is stereotyped like in 2026. It is a snapshot because it is continually fluid and changes over the decade / centuries - see pink is for boys -> pink is for girls, or high heels brought into Regency England for men -> stereotype for women today.

however the TRA community doesn't like it because it reinforces the fact that you can not even transition gender let alone sex.

A man who adopts all the habits of a woman (wears a skirt / long hair / lipstick / fishnet stockings / add your own stereotype!) doesn't adopt the female gender or become a woman - instead, because gender is defined observationally as a result of seeing all of society - their habits simply push the boundary of stereotype or definition of the male gender...

you are born a man / woman and can't change your biology, therefore

anything a man does defines the male gender (even if they were stereotypically habits of women) and vv. So the more a man moves away from 'male gender' (stereotypes) the more they simply redefine 'male gender' (stereotypes)

so male gender is basically a view on whatever biological men are doing
female gender is a view on whatever biological women are doing

and for both it is a vast range with some stereotypes for convenience - but a woman not meeting the stereotypes is still a woman and vv.

TLDR
Male gender is whatever is done by a biological man
Female gender is whatever is done by a biological woman

sex - immutable
gender is defined by sex, therefore gender = immutable

I got one!

'Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.'

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

But akkakk, it's not that easy.

Which gender stereotypically plays bridge? The violin? Which gender stereotypically climbs on climbing-frames in the playground at the age of five? Which gender rides a bicycle?