Endometriosis charity appoints trans woman as the new head of the organisation.

Glorianny says . . .
Firstly the suffragettes were a relatively small number of women
So in G’s view, were they unimportant?
Now let me think. . .
Who is it who keeps using the word minority
e.g. when she wants to criticise people for not supporting the minority of athletes from remote locations.

Tut tut G. You need to be more consistent.

I’m consistent.

I know that
TW are male.

Not all TW intend harm to females.

Not all TW want to flaunt themselves in female safe spaces, posting selfies and saying “You can’t keep me out”

Not all TW lie to enter female sports in order to cheat females out of their just rewards.
Not all TW pretend to be female when a female attendant has been requested.

Not all TW suddenly decide to be TW when they’re about to be incarcerated for rape, and demand to be put in a female prison.

Not all TW gang together with TRA to threaten and injure females.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the minority of TW do those things, and I condemn them for that.
The fact that the minority of TW do those things shows their lack of respect for females and for other TW.
But some women (AHF) support them, as is evidenced on this thread.

Trans Women Are Transwomen, Glorianny.

One of my main objections to women wanting to impose restrictions is their claim to be radical feminists. There is nothing radical in imposing restrictions it has been done so many times. Radical means progress.

So you object to rights for women because the people advocating for them 'claim to be' something you don't think applies? How odd.

I don't claim to be radical, FWIW. As I keep saying, I don't follow doctrines, but think for myself. I really can't imagine anyone but the most dogmatic rejecting an idea because of the nomenclature used by opponents, or in this case by the people who oppose them. It is TRAs who shout TERF, to define those who question their regressive policies. IME the women who support female rights don't see themselves as radical, but if they chose to define themselves as such I wouldn't change my opinion of them.

Even if we assume that biological realists do call themselves 'radical', have you changed your mind about, people being able to choose how they should be referred to? You have argued vociferously for the right to choose one's own definitions in the past. What's changed your mind? It can't be the 'evolution' of the language, surely? When that comes up on these threads the response to concerns about words not meaning what they have meant for centuries is that words can mean whatever the user wants them to mean - eg 'woman', 'mother', 'breastfeed' and so on.

Also, (and purely as an aside) 'Radical' doesn't necessarily mean progress. It is possible to have radical regression, such as in Iran when the Ayatollah's took over from the Shar, or when th Taliban took power in Afghanistan. In both cases there was radical transformation, but it certainly wasn't progress as I understand it.

The vote that women wanted was denied to them because of their sex, is that so hard for you to understand? Cropping their hair and wearing a shirt and trousers and saying they were men wasn't going to get them the vote. The women and girls in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world are denied rights solely on the basis of their sex. Female genital mutilation is carried out on girls because of their sex. Saying they felt like boys wouldn't save them.

Not that it's relevant, but men also got the vote in stages.

Doodledog

But how you (or I, or anyone else) 'judges' others is neither here nor there when it comes to sport. Sport is not everyday life.

As long as someone is not flashing at me, changing the rules of organisations to which I belong so that they are no longer for women, or generally behaving in an 'alpha male' manner, I couldn't care less about their biology. It wouldn't occur to me to wonder, really, and if it were obvious (which is usually is) I wouldn't care. On the whole, though, it doesn't matter.

But that is not what's happening here. It does matter that the language no longer describes the female sex accurately. It matters that research into society in general and sex-based inequality in particular is flawed, and doesn't show how women hare disadvantaged. It matters that safe spaces for women are no longer available. And it matters that women are not able to have careers at the top of their class in sport, as the female class no longer exists. And that's without the impact on children who are encouraged to see their bodies as 'wrong', and to medicate those bodies when they are perfectly healthy - they matter.

I'm sick of saying this, but I am not opposed to transwomen at all. But the bottom line is that they are male, and when that matters they should be recognised as such. That may upset their feelings, but what about the feelings of the women that are being disadvantaged? We matter too.

It is not discriminatory to say that male-bodied people can 'live as' whatever they like within the law, and be protected by law so that they can do so unmolested; but that when it matters, for reasons of safety, decency or fairness, that they should be treated as male. What is the problem with that?

You keep posting about "male bodied people" Can I ask who is included in that? Is someone like Caster Semenya who has female genitalia so hasn't the required penis "male bodied?". How do you identify these "male bodied' people?

What is your evidence that safe spaces are no longer available?

How do you propose that a female class will be established in
sport without imposing unacceptable conditions on people who have always been identified as women?

Medicating anyone no matter what their gender or sex to fit in with preconceived notions is wrong unless that medication is carefully supervised and used with the full consent of the patient, and a responsible adult if the patient is a child. However if a child is in such a state that they would attempt suicide, or resort to obtaining drugs through other methods prescribing medication may save a child's life

Transwomen are here. transmen are here, non-binary people are here. They aren't going to go away. They mostly live quiet unobtrusive lives and the concept that they do harm to women, are easily identified and are in some way deviant only fuels hatred, and harms not only trans people but any women who look or appear slightly different.

This explains it all very clearly faustusnotes.com/2019/06/30/gender-critical-feminist-praxis-harasses-natal-women-an-application-of-bayes-rule-to-bathroom-exclusion/

There is no evidence that gender affirming care helps avert suicide in children, mainly because there have been no long term studies, one of the criticisms of the tavistock.

No where have I said transwomen are deviant they are Male. I dont think all males are 'deviant' just that they have no place in womens spaces.

I'm not in court, and I am not an expert witness . There is no need to barrack me. I speak as a lay person who makes no claim to expertise in the various areas that impact on this topic.

1. I am not a biologist, but male-bodied people are those with male chromosomes, gametes, and well, male bodies. Their genitals may or may not be 'normal', but biologically they are male.

2. Evidence? I mean that if a man wants to use a female space, all he needs to do is say he is a woman, and lo! He has a free pass. I don't care about the finer points of law. I care about the day to day experiences of women, who just want to get dressed in private, or know that their teenage daughters are safe from peeping toms and potential abusers. I care about women who enter competitions or go for prizes (a large part of people's incomes in the Arts) which are designated as 'for women', but find that men can enter too. I care about vulnerable women in hospital, jail or in hostels who are traumatised already and then find that they are not safe from the men who put them there.

3. Children are not in a position to make choices that they may regret in later life. As I have said, I don't believe that threatening suicide is reason to allow things that would not otherwise be allowed. I have every sympathy if a child is distressed, but would prefer resources to be going to find out why there is a sudden wave of such distress that did not exist ten years ago than to go towards medicating minors.

4. You keep saying that as though you are the only one to know it.

Galaxy

There is no evidence that gender affirming care helps avert suicide in children, mainly because there have been no long term studies, one of the criticisms of the tavistock.

The Tavistock may not have produced any studies but it is wrong to say there have been none. This link is to one and a list of studies is at the bottom. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
More research would certainly be welcome.

I don't think you are the only poster on this thread Galaxy And transwomen have been accused of lying and cheating, both of which would be regarded as deviant.

I think it's a lie to say men can become women. I dont think transwomen just do that. Lots of people tell that lie.

Doodledog

I'm not in court, and I am not an expert witness . There is no need to barrack me. I speak as a lay person who makes no claim to expertise in the various areas that impact on this topic.

1. I am not a biologist, but male-bodied people are those with male chromosomes, gametes, and well, male bodies. Their genitals may or may not be 'normal', but biologically they are male.

2. Evidence? I mean that if a man wants to use a female space, all he needs to do is say he is a woman, and lo! He has a free pass. I don't care about the finer points of law. I care about the day to day experiences of women, who just want to get dressed in private, or know that their teenage daughters are safe from peeping toms and potential abusers. I care about women who enter competitions or go for prizes (a large part of people's incomes in the Arts) which are designated as 'for women', but find that men can enter too. I care about vulnerable women in hospital, jail or in hostels who are traumatised already and then find that they are not safe from the men who put them there.

3. Children are not in a position to make choices that they may regret in later life. As I have said, I don't believe that threatening suicide is reason to allow things that would not otherwise be allowed. I have every sympathy if a child is distressed, but would prefer resources to be going to find out why there is a sudden wave of such distress that did not exist ten years ago than to go towards medicating minors.

4. You keep saying that as though you are the only one to know it.

OMG given the level of questions, misinformation and demands placed on me by more than one poster that is funny

I care about all those people too, but I am not naive enough to think that banning transwomen will protect any woman, especially any who do not fit the feminine stereotypes which will necessarily result from imagining it is possible to distinguish transwomen from natal women

If a child threatens suicide because they are being bullied at school you would expect the bullying to be dealt with. In an extreme case you would remove the child rather than put them at risk. If a child threatens suicide because they think they are the wrong gender you would of course ask for help and if there was no other solution accept medication for them. What is the alternative?

Watchful waiting and addressing the other co morbidites that often run alongside this as recommended in the current NHS approach.

I haven’t said TW are deviant either. What an unpleasant word to use, but not surprising, Glorianny.

I say TW are male. I don’t lie about different sorts of women. Women are AHF, ergo TW are not women.

Glorianny says . . .
How do you propose that a female class will be established in sport without imposing unacceptable conditions on people who have always been identified as women?

I keep asking you to supply evidence of all these people who have always been identified as women outwith your usual CS and those from remote villages. Are there also lots of people who have always been identified as women, or is it only a one way identification?

Where is all the evidence that this is happening?
What proof is there that these people have been brought up as the wrong sex, apart from the celebrities whose new must have is a trans child?
(Even they acknowledge what sex their child is, or they couldn’t say they’re changing gender. So bringing up a boy as a girl or vice versa, they would be lying to their offspring if they say they are the opposite sex.)

I have made a suggestion of a means whereby ALL athletes or would-be competitors will be DNA tested from the start.
Competitors don’t suddenly arrive at competitions without having been selected during training, and they or their promoters will learn to expect that testing to happen in the same way as competitors are tested for drugs.* (Or don’t you approve of that either, G)
It’s a shame that the actions of some cheating TW have made this necessary, but actually, in the light of your claims about the myriad people who have always been identified as women perhaps it’s necessary.
All those trans who have been living peacefully, without cheating or using their trans status for malicious purposes would obviously not be affected by this.

Last time I mentioned this, you ignored it and suddenly reverted to talking about toilets.
Any chance you’ll stick to the subject this time?
Surely if this is going to be such a big problem, you would support the introduction of non-invasive testing right from the beginning of competitive life, to avoid disappointment for males who have been brought up as females, when they learn the truth?
169

Sorry
Are there also lots of people who have always been identified as men, or is it only a one way identification?

Your sense of humour never fails to puzzle me, Glorianny, but we are all different, and I recognise that.

The waffle about unconventional women is just that, IMO. The ready access men have gained to what were safe spaces for woman may have increased vigilance about interlopers, but that is no reason to just declare a free-for-all.

'If there were not other solution' is the pertinent point of your last paragraph. One possibility is to understand why it is that so many children feel that they need to 'transition'. Is it because they are told that there are myriad genders, which confuses them? Is it children with a propensity to anxiety who threaten suicide? Are there other issues at home? Are the children actually gay, or gay-curious? Why has 'gender' come to matter so much to children over the past ten years or so? Is it more common amongst children who eat cabbage, or live near ponds? There are many possibilities, and jumping to medication as the first line of attack doesn't seem to me the best approach. Much more work needs to be done before deciding that medicating young bodies is the way to go.

Galaxy

Watchful waiting and addressing the other co morbidites that often run alongside this as recommended in the current NHS approach.

Glorianny this is the alternative.
Pity it didn’t happen at the Tavistock, despite many parents/professional pointing out children’s holistic needs were being sacrificed

Mollygo
You have accused transwomen of lying and being cheats
deviant
departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour.
I don't think lying and cheating are accepted standards are they?

Wrong Glorianny, get your facts straight. I have accused some TW of lying and cheating because they do.*

Glorianny says . . .
I don't think lying and cheating are accepted standards are they?

Absolutely not Glorianny.
That is why it’s so wrong that TW lie their way into female safe spaces, prisons etc , and cheat their way into female sports.

Or don’t you agree that doing that is wrong?

Definitely not acceptable standards for me.

Are lying and cheating acceptable standards for you?

Deviant in the context where you used it is a very unpleasant word, but if you’re happy to use it in that context- that’s your choice.

So let's sum up where we have got to with the rules and required practices.
We will all need tests to show if we are biologically male or female.
Then (presumably) we will have to carry those results with us.

Then people will use the facilities linked to their sex.
So transwomen and intersex women (who have female genitalia) will use men's toilets and changing rooms.

Women and transmen will use women's facilities.
So people who look like men will be in women's facilities.

Elite sport will test sex, so women born in countries with few facilities who have qualified in their own country may be excluded.

Transmen who test as female will take part in women's sports, be in women's spaces and in women's wards, even though they look like men

And this is fair and protects women????

"So people who look like men will be in women's facilities" well it's you Glorianny who repeatedly refers to women who don't look like women and that you're unable to tell men from women simply by looking at them.

I don't recall anyone here who disagrees with you saying we should judge on how someone looks. We are not the ones who make references to 'what someone has in their pants, or post about 'butch lesbians' being refused admittance into women's facilities and/or being beaten up for being there.

As I'm sure you know, this isn't about how people look. Nor is it about all members of the trans community. This is about biological males having an unfair physical advantage over women, being able to compete against women in sports.

It's about those trans women demanding to be treated in the way they wish, at the expense and in some cases to the risk of the very people they claim to be: women.

If "women born in countries with few facilities who have qualified in their own country" are to be excluded because they are in fact biological male then so be it.

"Transmen who test as female......." well of course they'll test as female/women, because that is what they are. Providing their hormonal levels fall within the authorised levels, they'll compete with women. I'm sure if they wanted too, they could compete with men but that's unlikely to happen because they will be disadvantaged unlike trans women who have the advantage.

Smileless2012

"So people who look like men will be in women's facilities" well it's you Glorianny who repeatedly refers to women who don't look like women and that you're unable to tell men from women simply by looking at them.

I don't recall anyone here who disagrees with you saying we should judge on how someone looks. We are not the ones who make references to 'what someone has in their pants, or post about 'butch lesbians' being refused admittance into women's facilities and/or being beaten up for being there.

As I'm sure you know, this isn't about how people look. Nor is it about all members of the trans community. This is about biological males having an unfair physical advantage over women, being able to compete against women in sports.

It's about those trans women demanding to be treated in the way they wish, at the expense and in some cases to the risk of the very people they claim to be: women.

If "women born in countries with few facilities who have qualified in their own country" are to be excluded because they are in fact biological male then so be it.

"Transmen who test as female......." well of course they'll test as female/women, because that is what they are. Providing their hormonal levels fall within the authorised levels, they'll compete with women. I'm sure if they wanted too, they could compete with men but that's unlikely to happen because they will be disadvantaged unlike trans women who have the advantage.

It amazes me Smileless51 that the obvious inequalities don't occur to you.
That many of us reject the idea of ID cards but would be expected under your regime to carry proof of our sex.
Not to mention the transman issue. Because you can't challenge the bloke who is in the next cubicle to you because he may be male or he may just be a transman.
That having been designated male intersex people who have always identified as women will have to use male facilities.

Otherwise we will have to go on appearance and many transwomen would pass and many natal women wouldn't.
Did you read the tweets in the link I posted earlier from the lesbians you claim to care so much about? Who have been harrassed and challenged in facilities because of their appearance. Because they are butch (and that is the term they use). Are you willing to chuck those women under the bus just because you imagine there are men pretending to be transwomen waiting in every space?

It is evident that you have no sympathy or understanding for black sportswomen but really some natal women must matter to you.

So let's sum up where we have got to with the rules and required practices.
Well, you may see what you've written as 'summing up where we have got to', but I can't say I agree.

We will all need tests to show if we are biologically male or female.
We will if we choose to enter professional sport in a sex class to which we don't belong.

Then (presumably) we will have to carry those results with us.
Well, no, as we will be excluded if found to be of the other sex from the one we are trying to adopt. There would be no need to keep showing a test result, as sex doesn't change, so only one non-invasive swab would be needed.

Then people will use the facilities linked to their sex. So transwomen and intersex women (who have female genitalia) will use men's toilets and changing rooms.
No, as they will have been excluded from the female class of the sport in which they are participating. They would, of course, be at liberty to join the other class, but as often as not there would be no built-in advantage to doing so, so most probably wouldn't.

Women and transmen will use women's facilities. So people who look like men will be in women's facilities.
Quite the reverse. If only women, as tested by DNA, are allowed to compete in the female category, there will only be women using their facilities.

Elite sport will test sex, so women born in countries with few facilities who have qualified in their own country may be excluded.
Why? A DNA swab can be taken at the point of entry. The facilities will be available where there is budget and capacity for high level sporting events.

Transmen who test as female will take part in women's sports, be in women's spaces and in women's wards, even though they look like men
No, everyone will compete in the relevant sports class. The one in line with the competitors' biology.

And this is fair and protects women????
Absolutely. It would mean that women would have a fair chance of success in their field, would not have male-bodied people in the changing rooms, and would be able to compete fairly for educational scholarships based on having sporting ability better than usual for their sex.

It's not complicated.

As you are well aware, these matters are different when it comes to day to day life, but the question of transwomen and other male-bodied people in female sport can very easily be put to rest. Maybe if you could answer regarding sport before pointing out that toilets are trickier, we could agree (or agree to differ) on that matter before being diverted into a different bone of contention.

It is evident that you have no sympathy or understanding for black sportswomen but really some natal women must matter to you.

It is not evident to me at all that Smileless has no sympathy or understanding for black sportswomen. If you have any decency you will withdraw that slur.

There are black female athletes who are every bit as disadvantaged by being made to compete against males, and sympathy and understanding (not to mention outrage) applies equally to them.

Doodledog

*It is evident that you have no sympathy or understanding for black sportswomen but really some natal women must matter to you.*

It is not evident to me at all that Smileless has no sympathy or understanding for black sportswomen. If you have any decency you will withdraw that slur.

There are black female athletes who are every bit as disadvantaged by being made to compete against males, and sympathy and understanding (not to mention outrage) applies equally to them.

Post me one black sportswomen who has said she doesn't want to see intersex black women competing because she feels disadvantaged Doodledog and I'll apologise. Until then the remark is true.

Glorianny You cannot possibly slur Smileless on the basis of whether a black athlete has spoken up or not about not wanting to compete against males, something over which she has no control.
You are a total disgrace and should hang your head in shame.