Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

I don't think I've seen anyone use the term 'real women' on here. I don't use Cis, so just use 'women' and 'transwomen', and I think most others do the same.

I don't think anyone has suggested that there is 'acceptable' terminology on GN either . These sweeping generalisations are unfounded in so many ways. People have their own posting styles and ways of expressing themselves.

trisher

SueDonim

From Tricia’s post at 10.05am There is no reason to assume that transwomen are any different to real women and they will need risk assessment.

It seems that you now accept that TWANW, Tricia, and biology is real?

No I simply use the terminology that is found acceptable on GN.
As far as I'm concerned transwomen are women.

Well you don't usually use language like that, but I thought it was in line with your agreeing previously that trans people don't change sex, they change gender. (or maybe it was just a freudian slip)

If we are all to be called women then why have they differentiated me as a ciswoman.

Either we differentiate or we don’t surely.

SueDonim

From Tricia’s post at 10.05am There is no reason to assume that transwomen are any different to real women and they will need risk assessment.

It seems that you now accept that TWANW, Tricia, and biology is real?

No I simply use the terminology that is found acceptable on GN.
As far as I'm concerned transwomen are women.

From Tricia’s post at 10.05am There is no reason to assume that transwomen are any different to real women and they will need risk assessment.

It seems that you now accept that TWANW, Tricia, and biology is real?

It's because I am too lazy to quote or even highlight a name, Violet, it gets me into all sort if trouble.

GagaJo

trisher

So here's anoher comparison of the pro life and gender critical. They both insist that the thing they oppose causes more damage to individuals than any other solution. And this in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. So pro lifers will tell you women regret having abortions and the gender critical post instances of detransition. Both are probably true but not to the extent that they actually support the idea.

I like this. And it's true, isn't it? All the examples are the same ones, rehashed again and again and again.

Never mind the other 98% of trans people, who quietly get on with their lives, who need the services / support / hormones / surgery. They get ignored because they don't fit the 'accessing support is too easy' narrative.

All the whilethe GC insist the only good trans person is still 100% post surgery. Even while they and their GC political movement are making accessing that surgery nigh on impossible.

Well, there is a glaring hole in this 'argument', isn't there?

if 98% of transpeople are living quietly, (a) how do you know? Unless every transperson is being monitored at every stage, they will not appear in any figures, so I would absolutely challenge this statistic.

and (b) even if we accepted that it were true, this would explain why the same cases are 'rehashed'. They are the ones that have become public, whilst the other 98% (including OnwardsandUpwards' friend) are busy living quietly, happily or otherwise.

No problem, I'm currently working 3 different roles until the end of the month when I can drop one but I'm not that frazzled yet

My post was to the analysis of gender critical beliefs not your post VS. Just to be clear.

Yes that was all nonsense as well. Do you think anything you are saying is original. Do you think we havent heard this a hundred times before. I am a waiting for the far right accusations before I call bingo.
Its tricky to keep up though one minute we are irrelevant old women the next we are all powerful. Oh and just with regard to the limited life experience dig, as was pointed out when gagajo decided we were all homophobic, this is the internet so you know nothing about anyone here, and I promise that both the homophobia and limited life experience are very funny really.

Doodledog

*Domestic abuse isn't always carried out by men or just in relationships with partners.*
No, that's true, and is a valid point.

It's much broader than people think.
No, I think that most people are aware that this is the case, but you didn't make the link in your post, and in a discussion of whether pro-lifers' and GCFs' viewpoints are linked it is not the first conclusion that people are likely to come to.

I can see what you are getting at now. When you were in there, do you think that you would have been worried if there were male-bodied people alongside you. If not, do you think it's possible that others might have been?

Doodledog I can't really speak for anyone else and I can't even 100% speak for me back then. People were only just coming out as openly gay. People had funny ideas about trans people and used very derogatory language.

Back then the nicest term would have been crossdressers. I do remember a man coming to the shop I worked in a shirt and tie and asking me to help him pick out a skirt that would fit, which I did while my colleagues sniggered. He was very nice. So I think I would have been accepting but again, much derogatory language about then.

I think the refuge I was in could have made it work quite easily. There were 4 floors and the stairs were by the main entrance. Each floor had its own security and we couldn't access other floors without permission and being let in by a resident if that floor if we wanted to hang out in someone else's room. Each floor had its own kitchen and living room. So I think with the right sort of set up, any safeguarding issues could be minimised.

Now I would have no problem with it but obviously I wouldn't expect anyone else to be the same. So I would have thought the refuge I was on could have chosen floors for residents based on their needs.

I would point out another incorrect generalisation about GC, GJ but you might not understand what I mean.

trisher

So here's anoher comparison of the pro life and gender critical. They both insist that the thing they oppose causes more damage to individuals than any other solution. And this in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. So pro lifers will tell you women regret having abortions and the gender critical post instances of detransition. Both are probably true but not to the extent that they actually support the idea.

I like this. And it's true, isn't it? All the examples are the same ones, rehashed again and again and again.

Never mind the other 98% of trans people, who quietly get on with their lives, who need the services / support / hormones / surgery. They get ignored because they don't fit the 'accessing support is too easy' narrative.

All the whilethe GC insist the only good trans person is still 100% post surgery. Even while they and their GC political movement are making accessing that surgery nigh on impossible.

Here’s a thought I’ve been mulling over all day.

Physiologically that Y chromosome makes a difference. Not just to sex and reproductive organs but to a range of other physiological aspects.

For a long while females were ignored in medical testing and given treatments and medication that were based on research on males. We had to battle to get the recognition that what applied to the male sex medically often didn’t work well for the female sex.

And now we have research and treatments based on the differences in response and symptoms between the sexes.

However, if someone with a Y chromosome, with the physiological differences that it creates, enters the statistics and research as a female that is going to skew results. At what point will they become meaningless and medicine is back to square one in terms of developing the most effective treatment.

Should we abandon the labels male and female and instead have x and y?

There has to be a way of differentiating for everyone’s benefit.

Congratulations on yet another patronising post trisher. Sex is immutable. Presentation is whatever you want, but presentation is not just how you look or sound. You can be small dainty and sing soprano, or tall, strong, muscular and sing alto or lower and still be a transwoman.
Do all the trans-women you know continue to appear and behave like men? Or the transmen you know continue to act and appear like women? What shocking stereotypes you are presenting.
The only trans people I know, I wouldn’t know they are trans if they hadn’t shared that fact. They act and make the effort to appear as a gender they have chosen. I haven’t asked if their gender has ever been questioned, but I can’t see why it would be.

Just for the record and the hard of understanding GC people are critical of gender stereotypes and the imposition of those stereotypes, they recognise that sex is immutable but presentation is whatever you want,
If this is the case how then do you identify a transwoman? Because some of the posts describing them are pretty gender stereotypical.
There's another comparison
neither idea stands close examination as they are both full of holes.

So here's anoher comparison of the pro life and gender critical. They both insist that the thing they oppose causes more damage to individuals than any other solution. And this in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. So pro lifers will tell you women regret having abortions and the gender critical post instances of detransition. Both are probably true but not to the extent that they actually support the idea.

It's biology.

I thought gender critical meant you can't change sex.Off to make a cup of tea.

Sorry, Molly - cross-post.

No need, I'm sick of it too.

It's just that this thread was started with you laying down rules that you have consistently broken (ie (1) you have made demands and insisted on answers, but failed to give any of your own, and (2) you have not engaged in polite discussion, instead telling people to go to other threads (see (1) above), and refusing to discuss.

The thread was started on a false premise, as the definitions of the perspectives of the relevant groups was so badly flawed, and it went from there to people on one 'side' giving scientific evidence for their POV, and the other expecting us to take their POV simply because they said so (eg that there is a 'spectrum' of sex).

At some points you have laid down the law about sticking to topic and at others you have brought in all manner of extraneous information.

It is so unbalanced. You and trisher refuse to answer the most basic of questions, ignore the science, change the posting rules as you go along, twist our words and then sneer at us for not playing by the rule of the moment.

I don't see how any of that conforms to any definition of 'a debate', much less to a 'polite discussion'.

I don’t discriminate against a transperson going about their daily business as you seem to imply. It’s not even the first thing I think of when I see a tall strong muscular woman with a deep voice.
It’s a different matter if someone, a TW who looks and acts like the male he is or simply a male tries to go into women’s (adult human females) safe spaces, or take jobs specifically aimed at women for the benefit of women (adult human females).
As a feminist I care about women (adult human females). As a human being I care about those who are not adult human females.
GJ Why have you suddenly brought accent, nationality and time in the UK into the discussion. Are you about to disclose trans facts about immigrants or people who live in different regions of the UK?

Doodledog, every trans thread ends up discussing women only spaces. While I appreciate the strength of feeling about it, there are only so many times the same points can be gone over.

If you really feel there is still space to discuss it, why not start another thread? Then those of us that feel it has been done to death can avoid it.

Gaga, just to be clear, have you moved from your position earlier, when you rudely told Ilovecheese to keep to topic, or are we now supposed to widen the remit of the topic and drag in as many disadvantaged groups as possible in order to appropriate their concerns to 'support our arguments'? If so, perhaps you'd like to apologise to Ilovecheese for driving her off the thread?

A request, btw - not a DEMAND.

Domestic abuse isn't always carried out by men or just in relationships with partners.
No, that's true, and is a valid point.

It's much broader than people think.
No, I think that most people are aware that this is the case, but you didn't make the link in your post, and in a discussion of whether pro-lifers' and GCFs' viewpoints are linked it is not the first conclusion that people are likely to come to.

I can see what you are getting at now. When you were in there, do you think that you would have been worried if there were male-bodied people alongside you. If not, do you think it's possible that others might have been?