Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 13:17

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
TheKeatingFive · 29/09/2026 16:52

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 16:41

That's not a factual question is an opinion about policy

Earlier you were arguing that women’s sex specific spaces should be allocated on something other than sex.

That isn’t a disagreement on policy. That is your failure to understand what sex means.

iwishitwouldstartraining · 29/09/2026 17:07

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 16:42

And the person who understands presumably is you? Despite the issue being about the other person's person, right? But self evidently you are right and they are wrong?

I would very much like to understand how you propose to reorganise services that are currently single sex.

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 17:10

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 29/09/2026 15:50

So you think I shouldn't care about how DW thinks about it? Or anyone else? Just my son? Really? And I shouldn't care about the appalling negative effects of gender identity ideology on many women, several of whom I could name – women like Jenny Lindsay (author of Hounded), a poet who was cancelled by the Scottish arts establishment for mainstream views on the definition of "woman"?

But I will not lie to, and about, my son. Both DW and I, separately, came to the conclusion that there are people trying to coercively control us. Now you will no doubt think that is very extreme language to use, but how else can you describe threatening to go no contact if we don't do as we are told? This is from my own son, who was a sceptic until he succumbed to a poorly evidenced worldview that may result in him messing up his endocrine system because he doesn't conform to male gender stereotypes. He has an autism diagnosis, and is cutting himself off from the family who have loved him throughout his life because he has been taught by trans allies that disagreement in this one area is hatred and the sign of bigotry.

We have disagreed over all sorts of things, respectfully, over the years. But this one area is a no go area; we have not even been permitted to ask gentle questions to try to understand how he feels. To do so is apparently being "unaccepting". We should just agree and say, "yes, dear, of course you're a woman". Have you any idea what it does to family members, to be required, on pain of estrangement, to recite the creed of a religion you don't accept? Even the family members who are trans allies have been badly affected by this pernicious new ideology that only cares about itself.

Apologies for going off on a rant. I am not wanting sympathy, but I am so angry that swathes of society have been persuaded that only the chosen few matter, and that any mental anguish caused to any of the rest of us is because we are bigots unwilling to reflect on our bad behaviour in not swallowing illogical, damaging, sexist crap. I love my son, I believe he is on a path which is at best misguided and dangerous, and at worst could lead to a personal hell, and I see no way to get through to him with my love and my concern. Do you know that it's apparently a sign of bigotry and hatred to have concerns about hormone treatments?

I’m sorry this is painful for you and your wife. Of course your feelings matter, and you can seek support for them. You can also have questions about medical treatment. But your child is telling you something about how it feels when you describe their understanding of themself as ridiculous or as a “creed”.

Saying “I can’t stay close to you while you speak about me that way” is not controlling your beliefs. It’s a boundary about what your child is willing to experience. You remain free to hold your views; your child is free to decide how much contact feels bearable.

From the outside, it seems to me that you are of course allowed to hold any views you like, but the question is, what happens to your relationships when you express them to your child in this way.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/09/2026 17:12

iwishitwouldstartraining · 29/09/2026 17:07

I would very much like to understand how you propose to reorganise services that are currently single sex.

@Lacksie adding my voice to this request. It would really help me understand your thinking about sex and gender to see some practical examples.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/09/2026 17:13

Saying “I can’t stay close to you while you speak about me that way” is not controlling your beliefs. It’s a boundary

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

ArabellaScott · 29/09/2026 17:29

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/09/2026 17:13

Saying “I can’t stay close to you while you speak about me that way” is not controlling your beliefs. It’s a boundary

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

Yes. Anyone trying to redefine me as 'cis' can stay well away, thanks. I want nothing to do with that shit. That's my boundary.

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 17:33

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/09/2026 17:13

Saying “I can’t stay close to you while you speak about me that way” is not controlling your beliefs. It’s a boundary

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

Of course you are allowed that boundary. But no one has told you you are wrong or deluded or lying or ridiculous for saying you are a woman. So you don't actually have a problem here.

BackToLurk · 29/09/2026 17:35

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 16:41

That's not a factual question is an opinion about policy

You raised the point of agreement on an understanding the facts. A first step of that is to know what facts we are dealing with. You argued that the inclusion of transwomen in some settings wouldn’t matter. Now sure, that’s your opinion, but are you not basing your opinion on any facts? If so, it would be useful to understand what those “facts” are, which settings they are relevant to and why they mean that the inclusion of transwomen doesn’t matter. I appreciate you may be basing your opinion on no facts whatsoever and/or you are extremely reluctant to expand on what you meant.

simonr07 · 29/09/2026 17:35

Just adding this petition I started about the lack of evidence based information about gender dysphoria, medicalisation and sex rejecting surgery. It's kind of related to the original post in that it seems impossible to get authoritative evidence based, science based information rather than the gender affirming information our teens are referred to when they query their gender...

Please sign if you'd like to see better evidence based information for vulnerable people questioning their gender
https://c.org/nGgVt2NrsN

Sign the Petition

Protect vulnerable teens from online misinformation

https://www.change.org/p/protect-vulnerable-teens-from-online-misinformation?recruiter=485259082&recruited_by_id=12c386b0-cf2d-11e5-89aa-fdfe03367a6c&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=starter_onboarding_share_personal&utm_medium=copylink&share_id=nGgVt2NrsN

BlueLegume · 29/09/2026 17:36

@Lacksie with best will intended it does come across that you are so utterly beguiled by the trans mantra that you cannot accept some of us are guided by reality and not pseudo science, which trans relies on. We are decent people. We get it. You believe we should be open minded. As a mother I feel I would be failing my children going along with a delusion potentially seeded in their mind by the internet/SM/teachers/therapists/HCP.

I conceived carried and gave birth to my children. I was first point of contact. I know which are male or female. I bought daughters their first sanitary products. My son’s shaving razors etc.

They may feel at different ends of the male or female spectrum, girly/tomboy, effeminate men/more masculine man but they are all male or female.

And absolutely perfect as they are. There were no ‘wrong body’ births.

Please understand we get you have nailed your flag to the trans post.

What I can say is you can post incessantly but I will never be persuaded by the gender vs sex argument.

Have a good evening hopefully with your family and away from this exhausting attempt to persuade those of us who are just realistic about sex.

MyAmpleSheep · 29/09/2026 17:47

I think Lacksie is beginning to understand from her difficulties answering the more challenging questions put to her that when you look into the details there’s no bothsidsing to be done. You either go with facts and evidence, or descend into the madness of trans ideology.

Heggettypeg · 29/09/2026 17:48

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 17:33

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

Of course you are allowed that boundary. But no one has told you you are wrong or deluded or lying or ridiculous for saying you are a woman. So you don't actually have a problem here.

No, we are not allowed that boundary. Breach of our boundaries as women is implicit in TRA appropriation of the word Woman to mean a feeling in a man's head, and explicit in their insistence on being present in women's spaces.

iwishitwouldstartraining · 29/09/2026 17:48

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 17:33

One wonders why women are not allowed an equivalent boundary when Genderists redefine us.

Of course you are allowed that boundary. But no one has told you you are wrong or deluded or lying or ridiculous for saying you are a woman. So you don't actually have a problem here.

They have certainly tried to remove the concept of 'sex' from equality legislation, which leaves women with far more problems than just being offended.

But talking about boundaries, can you explain the boundaries you are proposing for services?

Pingponghavoc · 29/09/2026 17:54

I dont think Lacksie is trying to persuade us about anything. They just seem to think that some can believe x and some can believe y, and we can all get along with our lives.

Whenever safeguarding is mentioned, they dont respond.

Helleofabore · 29/09/2026 18:02

BIOLOGICAL SEX IS BINARY AND ROOTED IN ANISOGAMY

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ele.70426

Tim Janicke, Göran Arnqvist, Pierre-André Crochet, Patrice David, Philippe Jarne, Jussi Lehtonen, Thomas Lenormand, Edward H. Morrow, Geoff A. Parker, Paul A. Saunders, Jeanne Tonnabel, Frédéric Veyrunes, Christoph R. Haag

First published: 10 July 2026

ABSTRACT
The definition of biological sex has become a renewed focus of societal debate, fuelled by the conflation of biological principles with discussions of human gender diversity. Here, we argue that conceptual clarity critically depends on separating these domains. Drawing on evolutionary theory and empirical evidence, we maintain that biological sex is best defined as a binary classification of male and female reproductive strategies rooted in anisogamy, characterised by the production of two discrete gamete types of different sizes. We stress that gamete size constitutes the ultimate criterion for biological sex and that this definition applies consistently across sexual systems, from separate-sexed species to hermaphrodites, irrespective of variation in karyotype, hormonal profile, somatic phenotype, or behaviour. Further, we emphasise that evolutionary insights offer a coherent explanation for recurring, though not universal, associations between biological sex and patterns of sex-specific selection, sexual dimorphism and parental care. We conclude that the definition of biological sex as a binary classification based on gamete size is a powerful scientific framework compatible with the diversity of sexual phenotypes found in anisogamous organisms and distinct from the concept of human gender.

Concluding Remarks
Up to this point, we have intentionally refrained from discussing the implications of biological sex for our understanding of sex in humans. Yet, within the outlined definitional framework, humans are not exceptional. Rather, like all other metazoans, we are anisogamous organisms, and it is this shared reproductive feature that makes the binary definition of biological sex directly applicable to humans. Because human individuals can produce only one of the two gamete types, biological sex can be mapped onto individuals, as in other species with separate sexes. Challenges can arise when applying the binary definition of biological sex in society under the assumption that biological sex is universally tied to other traits, such as karyotype, hormone levels, the morphology of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, or behaviour. This assumption, for instance, ignores the possibility that genetic variants or differences in sex development can result in a divergence between gametic sex and phenotypic correlates. Crucially, however, the definition of biological sex based on anisogamy neither relies on nor supports this assumption. Therefore, the binary definition of biological sex is fully compatible with the diversity of sexual phenotypes beyond anisogamy (Heitzmann et al. 2023; Mank 2023; Loveland et al. 2025) and provides a coherent explanation for a significant part of it. In the context of ongoing societal debates, we emphasise that defining biological sex places no constraints on the diverse spectrum of human gender identities and expressions. While biological insights can inform societal debates on sex, they do not prescribe which gender-related traits society should assign, permit, or encourage for different sexes. Conflating human gender identities and expressions with the binary nature of biological sex is therefore not a scientific inference, but amounts to two fallacies: first, not acknowledging the diversity of human gender identities and expressions because biological sex is considered binary (‘naturalistic’ fallacy), and second, denying that biological sex is binary because human gender identities and expressions are not strictly binary (‘reverse naturalistic’ or ‘moralistic’ fallacy).

(The authors here are from France, Finland and Sweden )

Helleofabore · 29/09/2026 18:07

There really is no factual basis for a ‘more expansive’ definition of sex categories.

Datun · 29/09/2026 18:17

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 16:44

You are suggesting that these weren't the findings of the Tribunal? I don't understand.

No I'm not struggling. You sound exactly like a TRA. That's it.

ElenOfTheWays · 29/09/2026 18:21

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 14:12

It's like telling someone from a historically enslaved people that they don't have pretend they really think someone is their master, just as long as they call him master in a way that doesn't suggest to him or anyone else that they don't believe it

How you can think this is equivalent is insane to me. I just can't get my head around how you could have got there.

I thought you were a (sensible?) GC feminist. You said so. Women as an historically oppressed majority is feminism 101.
And even women who declare they aren't feminists know this one. Know it's true.

But somehow you don't?
Strange very strange. 🤔

ElenOfTheWays · 29/09/2026 18:24

Datun · 29/09/2026 13:45

Not a transactivist

For a second I thought I was back on the Sandie Peggie thread. I'm certain I just read this exact post from @Lacksie on there.

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 18:25

Heggettypeg · 29/09/2026 17:48

No, we are not allowed that boundary. Breach of our boundaries as women is implicit in TRA appropriation of the word Woman to mean a feeling in a man's head, and explicit in their insistence on being present in women's spaces.

It's not really the equivalent though is it? No one's telling you who you are, they are just asking to be recognised for who they are. Those are two completely separate things.

It changes nothing about how people recognise and understand who you are as a woman.

ElenOfTheWays · 29/09/2026 18:27

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/09/2026 14:32

i can't get my head round how you can't see it.

Men often can't. It doesn't serve them to see it.

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 18:28

ElenOfTheWays · 29/09/2026 18:21

I thought you were a (sensible?) GC feminist. You said so. Women as an historically oppressed majority is feminism 101.
And even women who declare they aren't feminists know this one. Know it's true.

But somehow you don't?
Strange very strange. 🤔

Oh I'm an ardent feminist. But no I'm not a "gender critical" one.

iwishitwouldstartraining · 29/09/2026 18:28

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 18:25

It's not really the equivalent though is it? No one's telling you who you are, they are just asking to be recognised for who they are. Those are two completely separate things.

It changes nothing about how people recognise and understand who you are as a woman.

Recognising somebody's sex is just recognising their sex.

Sometimes it is relevant.

See also age.

JanesLittleGirl · 29/09/2026 18:29

ElenOfTheWays · 29/09/2026 18:21

I thought you were a (sensible?) GC feminist. You said so. Women as an historically oppressed majority is feminism 101.
And even women who declare they aren't feminists know this one. Know it's true.

But somehow you don't?
Strange very strange. 🤔

I think that you are getting Lacksie mixed up with Alcove.

OldCrone · 29/09/2026 18:32

Lacksie · 29/09/2026 18:28

Oh I'm an ardent feminist. But no I'm not a "gender critical" one.

A feminist who thinks men are women if they say they are. Interesting.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread