Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

[MarcTheGenderSkeptic]

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

Its as if he knew women wouldn't want to share a changing room with him.

Yet it would be very strange to qualify as a doctor and have no understanding of the impact of sex, or understand that it has significance for other people. As a doctor shouldn’t Upton be able to understand the issue of consent from the perspective of somebody who has different beliefs about identity?

We will have to wait to see whether the judgement survives the appeal, but the suggestion that a woman’s concerns about changing in front of a man should depend on his hair style was…odd.

As was the assertion that women should disclose a history of abuse to their employer to 'win' the right to a single sex space.

So expansive that it becomes meaningless.

The default assumption is that sex discrimination is unlawful, so any service that excludes on the basis of sex must do so on the basis of specific criteria in the Equality Act.

You can argue the toss over when services should exclude men or women, but what is the point of segregating anything according to a self defined category?

Wasn’t there also a suggestion that colleagues should decide who used the changing room, which seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of anti discrimination protections?

Can't remember that bit, sorry! There was a lot of batshit.

Well of course it does. This is a ludicrous position to take.

You can’t just redefine sex to mean ‘something other than sex’ and then claim you aren’t undermining single sex provisions. It’s completely underhand.

I find this dishonesty at the heart of the trans affirming position completely sickening.

It just demonstrates how much distain you really feel for women.

Well said.

Its queer theory - sexuality and sex aren't fix they are fluid. Add onto that the idea of 'your truth' and we have men who know they are men, their careers depend on knowing about sex, claiming their truth is that they are female.

It'll be age next.

Quite. Getting everyone to accept sexuality as fluid, gender as similar all under the slightly dodgy umbrella of ‘be kind’ really does then open up the TQIA+ to add anything ands age is the obvious one. Having now started indoctrination in schools with relationship lessons educators are pushing the boundaries that parents do not really understand. There is a good podcast run by Courtney Schneider and Christina Woods called Those who Speak. They break down the lesson plans in schools in Victoria Australia and then have some guests from psychotherapists and psychologists etc who break down the reality of the curriculum content. Worth a listen.

Well, I guess we can salute Lacksie for saying men can enter some women's spaces rather than all. I mean, that's progress, yes?
I'm thinking the consensus would say no.

On that note, I don't think Lacksie ever did explain in what settings "including trans women as women [...] does not mean that sex ceases to matter, or that single-sex provision becomes meaningless"
(page 19 of this thread)

Apologies @Lacksie if I've missed your explanation.

I guess this is another "having your cake and eating it" in that men can enter female single sex spaces in circumstances where those circumstances don't mean the definition has been breached
To add to Northern's take that the women category can be so broadened to include males that the definition remains fully intact.
So, on the one hand, one category allows another in yet the initial category unchanged, on the other, the initial category is expanded to a "plus" version which means there's ample room for new categories to enter.
I mean, between these two options, it's all covered.

Ah, I think I get it. The category of woman has been "plussed up", as the hipster staff in my local coffee shop say.

Thing is, no one actually asked women if we wanted to plus it up.

Platitudes are easy.

legislation less so.

Women get no say.
Dictionaries do.
Concepts and language as evolving modern parlance do.
Men do.
Women don't.
Or as has been said, those useful idiots in the mass media's far right campaign, they don't get a say.

We need to be clear about what people like @Lacksieare demanding here

They want us to take a scientifically rigorous definition of woman that’s existed since the dawn of time, and replace it with something that’s ill defined, completely subjective, based on no verifiable criteria.

Why on earth would any sensible woman want to do that? It’s stupid beyond words.

To be honest, I don't think Lacksie is clear about what Lacksie is demanding.

Yep. To a certain mindset, the category of "just the female half of humanity" is just boring. Pointless. Too obvious.

A category of "sort of like the old boring women one and with still those old boring women in it, but made more exciting and edgy because it also had these special extra people you need to be really visionary and open minded to accept" is much more satisfying. Really makes them feel part of something big, something that changes the world.

Lacksie, like all Genderists, is ultimately demanding that we just accept it and do as we are told.

Activists want to convince everyone that words that have two distinct meanings can be grouped because the word is the same.

We can acknowledged that men with a GRC have female birth certificates and id. But the meaning of 'female' in that context is not the same as a new born baby girl. Their birth certificates were issued on the same day, but the meaning is different.

We know the process to get a GRA and an additional birth certificate is not the same as the process to get a birth certificate at birth. The baby's is based on observes sex, the adults based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Logically, the adult cannot claim his second birth certificate is the same as his first. But thats what he wants when he is using it as proof of sex.

We know that SSE is based on observed sex at birth. Everything about their justification and design is based on different bodies. It doesn't matter if some people truly believe that sex can mean a certificate, surgery or a gender, the spaces are designed around only one meaning of sex.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the interventions of first Northern and then Lacksie on this thread, added to TranParent elsewhere, have been totally illuminating, in the way that a green glow is illuminating...you can read by that light, but you'll get a hell of a migraine, lol.
First, that female is one thing, but woman is far far bigger as a classification, what you might call a meta definition to include many subsets of males who consider themselves women. Basically the Wikipedia As Written By Queer Theorists version of womanhood.
Then, this idea that a single sex space can be mixed space while staying single sex. What you might call the quantum theory of sex/gender. A particle can also be a wave, and you can't pinpoint it's location.
And underlying both of these, the idea that butch XXs and effeminate XYs break their bio determinist shackles to express their inherent humanity via these gender presentations controlled by early brain development, and the categories of women and men must first accomodate and then prioritise these over the preexisting biological sex limitations. Thus the "5 year olds know their gender" position.
This is the brave new world of gender as defining characteristic over biology that is proposed by the three genderists in this thread and others.

Ive talked to lots of TRA over the years, and the one consistent thing is they will use any argument, even conflicting ones, to get into womens spaces.

It only ever about stopping women having space that they cannot use.

Quite. But the answer is no.

Women's sex based rights however is a clear concept. Let’s stick with this.