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.

Of course they are. Genderists like you are telling me I'm a woman not because of my body but because I share some handwavy undefined invisible but very critical "identity" with a bunch of people, and if I don't agree or see myself that way, well I'm wrong about it and that's my problem not theirs.

I'm certainly not by their beliefs allowed my own boundary about who I consider to be female like me when it comes to single sex rights and protections. You yourself would support Dr Upton's belief that his hands on my body are a woman's hands just like mine over mine that they are not.

Nobody is telling you that- all of this is entirely in your head.
Everyone recognises you are a woman because of your body.

But not everyone is exactly the same as you. And that's ok too.

“No one's telling you who you are, they are just asking to be recognised for who they are.”

If the word ‘woman’ has been made meaningless because any male person has used the word in any way referencing them, that changes the very language female people have to uniquely describe themselves.

That does have the effect of telling female people who they are.

When a group of people acquire the language that uniquely describes a group of people who historically have suffered oppression for millennia and who have to be uniquely described to break that cycle of oppression, is has a direct negative impact on that original group.

It is gaslighting female people to deny this direct negative impact.

Nope. Logic fail.

You can't redefine "woman" to include male bodies without changing what it means to be a woman from simple sex to sone dort of mental characteristic or personality trait.

And that means imposing your new idea about what a woman is onto every other person who calls herself a woman as well.

No one has made the word meaningless, it is very far from meaningless. This is moral panic about nothing.

There is at least one poster who has spent this thread telling us that women are defined by behavioural and psychological traits. Did you miss most of this thread?

To define sex categories of humans, in fact one group of humans can be defined ‘exactly the same’ and uniquely different from the other group. That is how the sexes are defined in human beings.

But a man saying he is a women is factually incorrect.

Facts matter. They are how we maintain shared meaning, organise society, safeguard those who need it. We cannot simply redefine words as and when we choose.

I am a white woman. I’m not an elephant. I’m not Chinese. It is not reasonable for me to redefine any of these words because I feel like it. Because they already have shared meaning.

Biological facts are not a moral panic.

Dear god, do you even hear yourself here?

I see it's a moral panic now to know that men claiming to be women are still men. Sad there are never any original arguments.

Nope.

Either the word "woman" means simply adult human female, or it doesn't.

If you think it doesn't, you either impose a definition upon me or you take the word woman way from me.

Deny it all you want. It remains an obvious truth.

In fact, I love it when you do deny it, because it is so simple and obvious a truth that every time you deny it you show your dissembling in sharper and sharper relief.

How are those examples coming along by the way? Really looking forward to seeing you put sone flesh on these handwavy bones of yours.

Things don't have to be binary in order for them to be described and real.
No one is doubting your body as a woman or that it defines the fact that your are a woman/ female. It's just utter nonsense to pretend otherwise .

This recognition - that you are female because of your body- is embedded in our society in every way. From the moment of birth- and these days well before- it is the principle way people are recognised and categorised , and that shapes the names that we give them and all sorts from day zero. This recognition is not in threat, this is moral panic .

Dismissal of the negative impact on female people is emotionally manipulative. The impact is materially real and can be evidenced.

But do keep on denying it. Please make your best arguments for all those reading along. This is your opportunity to convince with coherent and logically consistent arguments.

@Lacksie

What's the difference between a man and a woman, in practical terms?

Can we designate "moral panic" a dog whistle for not interested in listening to women?

Emotionally manipulative 🙄. Ok see ya later.

There is no coherence in using the same language to describe any male person and using it also describe female people.

Calling it moral panic doesn’t remove the material outcome of what has been done.

The only reason the TRA view of women hasn't changed things more than it has is because most people haven't really bought into it. They still look at an adult human female and think "woman" rather than wondering "Does that person think of themself as womanly?"

It has certainly changed things where organisations have embraced that way of thinking and refused women their privacy away from men who say they are women.

You seem to support single sex spaces, but think that these spaces can work when they are open to both sexes as long as everyone identifies as the same sex?

What makes a man who identifies as a women different to any other man that is relevant for single sex spaces?

It cannot be his inner feeling about himself, because thats not revelant here. Spaces are designed around bodies not feelings.

When a man asks to be recognised as a women, especially when he is in a female space, what is that we should recognised as female?

so if people recognise who a woman is because of the body, they they would also recognise TIM are not women….. because of the body. So you’ve just completely agreed TIM are not women. Now we’re getting somewhere.

You are the person describing recognition of the negative impacts on female people as being ‘moral panic’ and denying any negative impact when there is a growing body of negative impact across the world.

This recognition - that you are female because of your body- is embedded in our society in every way.

Isn't this the same for everyone? That to be female or male is our bodies.

How could it be possible to see some men as female/women?

So if male people can be women, and female people can be women, what is the word for an adult human female? It can’t be woman, because according to you, that includes males, so what do you call an adult human female?

Ah, the duplicity of the Genderist.

People know we are women because for most people that is still the word for an adult human female.

But if Genderists get what they want, which is general acceptance that trans women are women, people will no longer consider us women just because we are obviously adult, human and female, because that won't be what the word means anymore.

We will still be the same people, juat as adult, just as human, just as female. But we won't be "women" any more. And the understanding of our experiences now will be disconnected from each other and from our history because the language that connects them has gone.

It is like having a man with an axe chopping down the supporting poles of a bridge, and when people say "FFS stop chopping the bridge or it will fall down" he laughs and says "Fall down? What are you talking about? You are literally standing on it!"

This is the bit the TRAs miss.

There will always be the need for a word to describe the 51% of the population whose bodies develop to produce small gametes. That word will always be more important than something based on subjective feelings.

Even if they wrestle the word woman away, another word to describe sex based difference will be needed.

@Lacksie Just bumping this again because it might get lost - let's see some examples to show your theories playing out in real life scenarios.

For example: I am getting a mammogram. If I say I want it to be from a woman, should that be Sex or Gender, and why?

Bra fitting?

Ladies only swimming?

Women in Tech networking event?

Hiking group?