Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

But what else is intersex then? The clue is in the name, isn't it? So maybe trans aren't intersex but they still deserve respect and the ability to self define. If someone that is neither/both can self define, why can't others?

Intersex is a mistaken name, now that hormones etc can be accurately determined.
People do not deserve the right to self-define their sex since their physical sex is unchangeable.
They do deserve the right to present themselves in any way they want, which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to safety and dignity.

There are people in this forum that are offended just because trans women call them cis. Or because trans women call themselves women.

So by using a word they 'infringe' others dignity.

I have no sympathy for that.

FarNorth

Intersex is a mistaken name, now that hormones etc can be accurately determined.
People do not deserve the right to self-define their sex since their physical sex is unchangeable.
They do deserve the right to present themselves in any way they want, which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to safety and dignity.

I was about to reply, then saw this and couldn't have worded it better, FN.

For the millionth time, GagaJo, I, for one, have no issue with transpeople calling themselves what they like. I have issue with the idea that this means that they are what they say they are, particularly without a definition of what they mean by it.

I'm not bothered if transwomen call me Cis, either. I am bothered if I am asked to use it myself, as I am a woman, not a Ciswoman, and as I've said, I do know what I mean by that.

I think it might help this debate is the people who want trans women to be able to access places that have previously been reserved for women, to be a little more open minded about women's fears about this.
One small example: some children in refuges are very frightened if they hear a man's voice. If instead dismissing these fears, the refuge could say something like "yes we acknowledge this concern and are hoping that we can avoid this by having a few adult only refuges, and sending transwomen to those refuges, we can help the children feel secure"
Then at least those with concerns would feel they are being listened to.

So by using a word they 'infringe' others dignity. I have no sympathy for

And yet, the word "woman", and it's definition, when put on a billboard in Liverpool in 2018, was removed because it was "transphobic" and upset trans.

Trans can call natal women "cis", but they object to us calling ourselves "woman" Gagajo?

Another occasion: I live in Manchester which I am sure you know is a very diverse city. Every leisure centre that I know of now has women only swimming sessions. If transwomen started to attend women only swimming sessions then the muslim women would no longer attend. They would probably not make a fuss, just stop going, which would be a shame.
So it might be a nice idea if trans supporters would encourage transwomen to attend the mixed sex sessions, not the women only sessions.
A bit of give and take could go a long way.

This debate isn't about women only spaces Ilovecheese. It's about gender critical feminists.

Or
"I'd rather you just referred to me as a woman, not a cis woman is that o.k?"

"yes of course"

Oh I do apologise Gagajo I was under the impression that gender critical feminists wanted to preserve women only spaces.
I will keep my thoughts to myself then.

Oi! Thread police! It's an open discussion that anyone can join in, they really don't need your direction or permission as to how they contribute. If we can have witterings of forests and referrals to God, we can have same sex spaces.

Come on in Ilovecheese, your contributions are welcome.

FarNorth that was very well put.

Doodledog I totally agree with your last paragraph.

However,
I do care that people claim they actually are what they call themselves when science says it is untrue. If you need to lie about yourself, you have serious problems.

I really do care what transpeople call themselves when they make use that claimed nomenclature for illegal or damaging purposes. The minority that do that are damaging the chances of peaceful life of other transpeople with no apparent concern for those others.

Ilovecheese

I think it might help this debate is the people who want trans women to be able to access places that have previously been reserved for women, to be a little more open minded about women's fears about this.
One small example: some children in refuges are very frightened if they hear a man's voice. If instead dismissing these fears, the refuge could say something like "yes we acknowledge this concern and are hoping that we can avoid this by having a few adult only refuges, and sending transwomen to those refuges, we can help the children feel secure"
Then at least those with concerns would feel they are being listened to.

I think most trans allies acknowledge and understand these fears (so many threads).

The problem is that trans people already use these spaces and we just have no way of knowing without putting any women under suspicion if they don't conform to whatever an individuals idea is that a woman should look like.

I don't feel comfortable in communal spaces and thankfully not many shops have one open dressing room any more. I would also like single secure toilets. I'm not the only woman who feels that way. Making that the norm would eradicate at least some issues. However many woman feel safer in communal spaces so a compromise has not been found

Ilovecheese

Oh I do apologise Gagajo I was under the impression that gender critical feminists wanted to preserve women only spaces.
I will keep my thoughts to myself then.

They do. We're not all gender critical.

I really do care what transpeople call themselves when they make use that claimed nomenclature for illegal or damaging purposes.
Yes, that's true. I was thinking about down the pub or in the classroom. But you are quite right that if a transwoman has raped as a man, the victim should not have to refer to her attacker as 'she'.

Ilovecheese

Oh I do apologise Gagajo I was under the impression that gender critical feminists wanted to preserve women only spaces.
I will keep my thoughts to myself then.

No, Ilovecheese.

It has been established that DEMANDS from people on this thread are not allowed, so post away.

The problem is that trans people already use these spaces and we just have no way of knowing

And we are enabling more & more men who claim to be trans to use the spaces, by accepting the word of absolutely anyone that he is a woman, even if we can see clearly that he is not.

(By 'we', I mean society.)

This debate isn't about women only spaces Ilovecheese. It's about gender critical feminists.

And

"Oh I do apologise Gagajo I was under the impression that gender critical feminists wanted to preserve women only spaces.
I will keep my thoughts to myself then."

They do. We're not all gender critical.

Let's have another video break

Here are Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and Adrian Harrop - always a winning duo!
(9 mins)

youtu.be/y8nViKYmEhU

I watched that clip earlier today FarNorth and was staggered that, in light of his Tweets, he's managed to keep his job. I've posted a photo of the offending billboard poster upthread but, for those who missed it, here it is again.

Adrian Harrop's employment tribunal with the Medical Practitioners Tribunal service commenced today.
The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that from 10 May 2018 to 23 November 2019, Dr Harrop inappropriately used his Twitter account to post tweets that were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature and some of which were intended to intimidate.

The problem is I can see no way that gender critical as a term can be combined with feminist. Gender critical denotes an idea that somehow we have to police gender and that there is some way of seperating those who conform to the gender they were designated at birth and those who don't. Then the people who are acceptable (that is the first group) are deemed to be more worthy of consideration than the second. Apparently this is because some of the people in the first group feel threatened by some of the people in the second. Although the evidence is scanty and the people being referred to may actually only be using the second group as cover. However you look at it it's discrimination and there is absolutely nothing feminist about discrimination. I don't understand how a movement that has spent so long trying to achieve equality can ditch that principle. So be gender critical by all means but stop pretending that it has anything to do with feminism and admit it will be discriminatory.

Yes trisher. Exactly. Pseudo feminists, in the group as cover, trying to undo the deconstruction of gender that feminism has been working towards.

That may be your personal interpretation of what GC feminism means, trisher, but I doubt that it is widely shared.

GagaJo

Yes trisher. Exactly. Pseudo feminists, in the group as cover, trying to undo the deconstruction of gender that feminism has been working towards.

'If thoughts corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought.'

1984 - George Orwell

And it's definitely natal women who are being discriminatory is it? Are you sure about that?

Adrian Harrop GP shared this picture on his Twatter feed with the following tag: Rx: One (1) x Generous Spray, QDS; + unlimited PRN usage in the event of any unexpected
trans-exclusionary encounters! #terfrepellent #transgender #transrightsarehumanrights #transrights.”

Presumably his employers didn't like it either, hence his tribunal.