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.

The bottom line is that you cannot say “we are going to offer separate services and spaces to people we will call ‘men’ and ‘women’, but what we mean by those terms is not fixed”. It is unworkable.
Let’s take another thread on here concerning women-only swim sessions. When, in my area, Muslim women ask for women-only swim sessions they have clear expectations that these will be for female people (old-style women). Women who, for whatever reason, require single-sex spaces should not have to decode every iteration of ‘women-only’ to discover what it actually means. It should be clear. Using sex as the criterion grants that clarity.

Don't forget the "I was going to answer but now I won't because you are all so horrid!" parting shot!

It's the underlying unspoken rule, so pervasive many people don't and can't even see it.

It's not okay to exclude men from women's spaces because it might make them sad, but women who are excluded from women's spaces because they have become mixed sex? Invisible, irrelevant, inconsequential.

The double standard is just so mind boggling.

So my question is - why does it matter if men are excluded, but it doesn't matter if women are excluded? If women are supposed to just suck up their preference against being in a space with men, why can't trans-identifying-men be told the same thing?

It's a galloping case of Princess Bride syndrome.

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

True, that goes in at 4, between proselytise and leave. Alcove is currently at that stage too.

It's like a weird version of the grief cycle.

Well, here's a collation of tough questions for Lacksie, if she wants to answer any of them -

Which specific services should be segregated but by gender not by sex? Given that gender is self-described, and segregation means enforcing the exclusion of some, how is it possible consistently to exclude anyone on the basis of a characteristic that is entirely self-determined and sometimes changes on a day-to-day basis?

GIven that you think gender dysphoria is a medical condition that requires treatment, why does the domain of treatment for that condition (alone, among all medical issues) extend to social re-engineering (i.e. extend to my participation, as a non-involved person).

You said earlier that gender dysphoria is not a prerequisite to be 'trans'. What is the nexus between gender dysphoria and being 'trans'? If one can be 'trans' without gender dysphoria, why are people who are not dysphoric entitled to use opposite sex facilities along with those for whom this is part of the treatment for their dysphoria?

To Which specific services should be segregated but by gender not by sex? Given that gender is self-described, and segregation means enforcing the exclusion of some, how is it possible consistently to exclude anyone on the basis of a characteristic that is entirely self-determined and sometimes changes on a day-to-day basis?, I would add

Which specific services should be segregated but by gender not by sex and why?

For those services, what is the Gender-based rather than sex-based need that justifies single Gender support, and what is expected of people who do not feel a strong sense of Gender? Are they assumed to just align with the Gender usually associated with their sex despite not actually feeling that Gender? And if so, given that means that many, perhaps even the majority of people will actually be using the [thing] based on sex and not Gender at all, why is simple sex not a more appropriate method?

And some oldies but goodies...

What is it that female people and trans women have in common that makes "woman" an appropriate word for both? And "man" for trans men and male people?

What's the difference between a woman and a man, and why does it matter?

The biggest question is about which services should be segregated by gender.

I am fairly sure that we will find that those services are ones that should not be segregated at all - which is the default position of the Equality Act 2010, and the point that was conspicuously missing from Lacksie's poor exposition of what the FWS SC decision means, or should mean.

@Lacksie offered para 217 of the FWS judgment as justification for TIMs using female services but that’s mistaken. Para 211 says

In enacting these [single sex] exemptions, the intention must have been to allow for the exclusion of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,
regardless of the possession of a GRC, in order to maintain the provision of single or
separate services for women and men as distinct groups in appropriate circumstances.
These provisions are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces
or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless
hostels, segregated swimming areas (that might be essential for religious reasons or
desirable for the protection of a woman’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity
of the two sexes) or medical or counselling services provided only to women (or men) –
for example cervical cancer screening for women or prostate cancer screening for men,
or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence.

Para 217 is just working through the details of how the EA becomes unworkable for single sex exemptions if “certificated sex” is included in the definition of sex.

That changes nothing about the point I made which is that there is a practical problem/ incoherence with saying that trans people must always be treated according to birth sex regardless of transition.

The Supreme Court itself explicitly recognised this practical problem when it observed that a trans woman who “presents fully as a woman” may feel that she would provoke more objection entering men’s facilities than women’s, while such trans women may in practice use female facilities without compromising other women’s privacy and dignity.

The judgment also recognised the converse situation: transition may give a trans man such a masculine appearance or attributes that his presence in a particular women’s service could reasonably be considered inappropriate.

I agree that the SC judgement intended to allow for the exclusion of trans women from women's services where proportionate etc. I don't agree that it intended to mandate this always - although that is how it has been widely interpreted.

I actually support the judgement conclusions in many ways, where I think the Court went badly badly wrong was in failing to clarify that interpreting sex in this way need not imply that trans people must always be excluded from using single sex provision in in alignment with their gender, just that they may be excluded (where there is a legitimate aim and proportionate).

The blind spot is the assumption that there is some intrinsic, objective factor that means trans people match the opposite sex better than their own.

There isn't.

All there is is an entirely personal, subjective projection by the trans person that has nothing to do with the reality of being the opposite sex, or even anything much in common with another trans person of the same "gender", and it is actually pretty insulting and offensive to treat people as if it is.

Once you realise that, all the flimflam falls away.

Sex is not gender. Trans people's self image as the opposite sex does not create a moral obligation on anyone else to play along, especially when this creates a sexist and demeaning environment for the people expected to submit to it.

Looking forward to a clear non-hand-wavy explaination of what "presents fully as a woman" means. Thouggh I do always wonder which Woman they had in mind.

Also, with baited breath, will we finally get that elusive example of a situation where it appropriate to discriminate by gender rather than sex? Remember, to be coherent any justification has to work for the women in the space as well as the trans identifying man!

They are legitimate excluded because of their sex.

Spaces and services will be justified on the bases of sex and designed assuming only one sex will be using them.

Its not possible to have single sex services and include both sexes. Women using the space will reasonably assume its single sex and do not consenting to men being present.

If you want single gender spaces and opportunities, they have to be defined and justified separately.

Single sex provision in alignment with their gender

This is a completely nonsensical concept.

Of course the SC didn’t suggest that the criteria of sex could be replaced with something else when it comes to determining use of sex specific provision.

That’s illiterate nonsense 🙄

I get the impression that Lacksie sees 'passing with a diagnosis' as the criteria to be included in some womens spaces. Assuming a diagnosis means they are unlikely to be violent and passing means we wouldnt know?

No diagnosis can guarantee that, and passing is subjective. Women may notice more dependent on the situation - more so in the toilet at sainsbury's than in the biscuit aisle.

But its still down to expectations and consent. When I go into a womens spaces, I expect the definition of woman to be consistent. Not that sometimes a man might legitimately be there. Those spaces need to be advertised as mixed sex.

I think theres an assumption that these men have no choice but to change their appearance and therefore male spaces are not suitable for them. And its womens responsibility to accommodate them. It really isn't.

If men decide to change their appearance and do not want to use male spaces, the onus is on them to campaign for their own spaces.

Yes. I know trans people who have successfully managed to use the toilets provided for their own sex, or have managed to use universal or accessible toilets. And toilets are the most controversial area, which is why they get so much attention. We all need them. It is obvious to most people that women's prisons and psychiatric wards should never be open to men, likewise women's changing rooms, women's support groups following abuse or violence by men, and women's sports. Some people don't see a problem with a man in women's multiple cubicle toilets, though as a man I completely disagree with them – I think some people are naïve about men's sexuality.

Then there are spaces like Women's Institute groups. What's the harm in letting a man who likes to think he's a woman in? But the Equality Act very sensibly says that if you allow one man in, you can't exclude other men. One man in a women's space makes it no longer single sex, just as one anchovy in a bean stew makes it no longer vegetarian. And if it's not single sex, how can you justify excluding men? If the stew isn't vegetarian, why not turn it into bouillabaisse? The vegetarians can't eat it either way.

You’ve missed the point of the Equality Act. It is only ever legal to segregate by sex if the service provider rightly believes there is a legitimate reason to do so, nor is it ever compulsory to segregate a service by sex.

Those two facts drive a coach and horses through your fallacious theory about what’s wrong with the SC decision in FWS.

Then you've misunderstood entirely what I've said.

Of course, no one ever said it's compulsory to segregate a service by sex.

Thank for acknowledging parental distress.

I think you would do well to read more of the many clear, logical and well-argued posts by FlirtsWithRhinos on many threads, rather than dismiss her in that way. I have found her almost always thoughtful, reasonable and sensible.

For me, there are many distressing aspects to my son's dive into the trans world. Among these are

• it's a difficult path that he has embarked on, and there are enough difficulties in life without adding to them
• I do not believe that trans identity thinking is a positive worldview; it encourages victimhood, it is often sexist, and there are an awful lot of people in some trans circles pushing very worrying activities
• he doesn't, in my opinion, have a healthy understanding of how to handle societal gender stereotypes
• self harm, in the use of drugs (hormones in quantities that the sexed body doesn't produce naturally) and extreme cosmetic surgery are actively encouraged in some trans circles
• trans ideology is closely associated with queer theory, which advocates for the boundaries which protect people to be removed – single sex spaces are only one of these
• estrangement from families is very often encouraged, instead of emotional resilience and respectful disagreement
• language is manipulated by trying to redefine words (woman, man, lesbian for example) and by coercion to use "preferred" pronouns and to avoid "deadnaming", with the threat of estrangement
• gender ideology calls all disagreement or even questioning, however gentle, "hatred", "transphobia" or even "fascism"; any concern shown by parents is shut down, or reframed as bigotry.

It is frightening to see an autistic child, even one who is now adult and has fairly successfully made his way in life up to now, embarking on a risky, difficult and illogical path, and separating himself from those who have loved, supported and advocated for him since his birth. We have been delighted to see him grow and mature, to find a rocky but ultimately successful path into a career, to become what we thought was a sensible, caring, gentle, level headed if rather sceptical adult. And now he has gone headlong into a belief system which denies physical reality. It's as if he has embraced scientology or joined the Moonies. We have all but lost our son, and he has all but lost his parents and other close family. I hope he understands that we are here if he wants or needs us.

Other parents are in almost exactly the same position – our stories are so very similar – over an ideology that from our perspective makes no sense and causes harms to very many people, including those caught up in it.

Are you going to answer the difficult questions that have been put to you, earlier, or are you just ignoring them and hoping they'll go away?

I really thought there was a good chance that you were committed to putting forward your own, consistent, well thought out, solutions to the issues that confront us. If you are committed, these are questions you need to answer. If you can't or won't answer them then your position is not well thought out.

Thanks. I'm old enough and ugly enough to cope though! The first time I was called a transphobic bigot, it shocked me, but people are welcome to agree, disagree, insult or pay compliments on an anonymous discussion forum. I do appreciate the kindness and sympathy of many on here, almost as much as the help in understanding sex and gender matters, legal points, and even, to a degree, women's perspectives!

I do understand why this is distressing and frightening. But as I said earlier: you don’t have to agree that your son is female, or accept every idea associated with trans politics, to approach what he is telling you with an open mind.

At the moment, you seem to interpret almost everything through the prior conclusion that he has been captured by an ideology. That seems like treating his experience as something to be dismissed or explained away before you have really tried to understand it.

I can understand why that feels unbearable for him and he choses to shut the conversation down. That seems an understandable boundary to draw

If preserving your relationship matters, perhaps the starting point is curiosity rather than starting with the certainty that the things he's telling you about himself are wrong and bad.

DW has more sense than to get into interminable discussions on Mumsnet, but we've always had different coping mechanisms. Mine is to analyse and look for truth. Unfortunately, neither of us can see how to relate to a son who wants us to affirm him as our daughter, which he is undoubtedly not, and who ignores every message unless there is (very occasionally) a compelling practical reason to reply. Which is more important, our integrity which he can rely on, or our "kindness" with no integrity? He knows that if we call him "her" we don't mean it. What good is that to him? He's too intelligent to be fobbed off with pretence. What he is actually asking for is for us to adopt his new religion.

Our grief, and that of other parents, is ambiguous grief. We cannot mourn fully, because there is no resolution. I believe our son is also experiencing grief over the strained or fractured family relationships (we still have a thread of contact). I am actually very angry at the attempt of this ideology to make dissent equal heresy. Only in extreme religious sects have I seen such contempt for dissenters.

We are fortunate to have wonderful support, including from people who disagree with us.

Finally, why do you imply that people should "accept", albeit after a struggle, their child's transition? You are showing that you think affirming trans identities is the righteous thing to do, in other words it is clear that you align with the trans identity religion. I'm a non-believer. I continue to love my son. I do not have to adopt his religion or worldview to do so, and I will not pretend he is my daughter. Who else is prepared to be a link to reality for him, when all the world and her dog goes along with the trans fantasy?