Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

Good message VS. That’s just how some of us feel, faced with the sort of attack you mention.
I’d echo the thanks to all those fighting to refute the untruths we’re faced with.

Surely having fought so hard and been so vocal about having the word mother removed, they'll work just as hard to have it reinstated where it has been removed.

Their credibility has already been severely dented, wouldn't some damage limitation be in order?

I haven't seen one poster on this thread, or any threads on this subject who doesn't "a better outcome for young people and more freedom for them to be the people they want to be" trisher, the objections raised are that this happens at the expense of the rights and freedoms or others, predominantly women.

"But I do wonder why they fell the need to make things personal" Oh the irony.

Thank you for your apology, trisher. I am not aware that I have ever been reported to GN, and hope that I have never done anything to warrant it.

I note that you are not withdrawing the accusation that I was lying, so I will respond to that in case you are still reading. You didn't just 'ask me for evidence'. What you actually said was: apparently I am supposed to believe your assertions because you make them and because you are apparently still working. and As you cannot or will not post any evidence to the contrary I really cannot take your assertions seriously.

This was in response to my saying that people's workplaces had insisted on their declaring pronouns. How was I supposed to get evidence of that? When I posted (and as I said at the time) I was in a break from a Zoom meeting where people from one employer all had she/her, or he/him on their screen tags. I could see it with my own eyes. Calling that an 'assertion' and saying that I was 'apparently' working is as close as you can get to calling someone a liar without using the word, and I was upset by that. I don't report people - I prefer to fight my own battles - so I called you on it. That is not me 'making things personal', it is me responding to a personal attack from you.

I am not usually bothered by things that are said on here, as I'm not a delicate little flower, and can separate differences of opinion from personal attacks. That was a personal attack, however, and an attack on my personal integrity, which is something I value.

Anyway, you may not be reading this, so I won't continue. I hope you enjoyed the WH interview, and that you enjoy your break.

Is it ‘making something personal’ to address questions or give responses to the person being referred to. In fact that’s what Trisha did in her comments.
The trans debate shouldn’t be about who ‘wins’ - it should be about making it possible to discuss the issues safely in order to widen debate. Sadly, we all seem to be dug in- I’m including myself in that. I can’t accept that eg expecting lesbian women to have sex with trans women with a penis is remotely ok. If a lesbian/bi sexual women makes that choice ok. But we are back to informed choice
I’m off to walk those dogs. It’s a beautiful autumn day so clearing the head feels welcome

But equally Mr House should know there is such a thing as the male menopause www.nhs.uk/conditions/male-menopause/

This is hilarious. A link proving that the male menopause exists takes you to a site that says the male menopause doesn’t exist. Indeed, how can it, when the term menopause means the cessation of menstruation.

Indeed SueDonim, but that's level of "argument" that some of us have been up against for a long time now. When we've presented documents, url links, c&'d transcripts of evidence-based information, we've been met with accusations of telling lies and being transphobic so, it's rather satisfying that one of the few url links provided by the TRA supporters actually confirms what we've been telling them all along!

The trans debate shouldn’t be about who ‘wins’ - it should be about making it possible to discuss the issues safely in order to widen debate. Sadly, we all seem to be dug in- I’m including myself in that.
I agree. I really wish that more people would join in on these threads, although I can understand that it might seem like a battlefield. It needn't be like that though, and shouldn't be about 'winning' or 'losing'.

To be fair Doodledog the reason it's been like a battlefield is because we've actually been told that "it's a war". Such dogmatic attitudes makes it difficult to hold a sensible and reasoned discussion.

True. That post was very confrontational and the language used was quite worrying.

Still, onwards and upwards. With luck, this, and future discussions on trans issues will stay polite and on track.

I won't be participating in these "discussions" in future. I will just give my thoughts and move on.

I have no respect for the way some leaning towards gender critical engage in them at all and don't want to be associated with that in future.

No problem.

Absolutely VS, just make your pronouncement and don't engage further.
People reading, who may not actually post, can come to their own conclusions about that.

You couldnt make it up really. This is a thread started with an explanation of gender critical views which is completely incorrect. During the thread we have been called homophobic, lacking in life experience and irrelevant. But apparently that's respectful engagement.

Galaxy

You couldnt make it up really. This is a thread started with an explanation of gender critical views which is completely incorrect. During the thread we have been called homophobic, lacking in life experience and irrelevant. But apparently that's respectful engagement.

Is your view of gender critical the definitive version? Offically authorised? Or is it a perspective, like any other?

Is your view of gender critical the definitive version? Offically authorised? Or is it a perspective, like any other?
Hardly the point, as you used the OP to define both Pro-life people/perspectives and those of GCFs.

You were the one to define the terms of the 'debate', and then refused to answer questions, made snide digs at others, and decided that facts weren't relevant - we should believe things because you said so.

Perspectives are one thing. Daft comments like the fact that sex (as opposed to gender or sexuality) can be on a spectrum are another. Sex is about gametes - reproductive cells. Two are required - one from each sex - to produce offspring. There is no spectrum.

That has nothing to do with perspective, so of course GCFs, who criticise the idea that sex and gender are the same thing, or that people can change sex are going to see it like that. There is no spectrum of belief, either.

Well it's probably nearer a factual statement than "men have a menopause" or "its possible to change your biological sex". The "gender critical" contributors to these threads have provided many verified links to information that support that damage is being done to women's rights and how that's happening. The "gender rights supporters" on the other hand have simply squealed "You're not a real feminist." "You're transphobic" and described it as being "a war". And still we won't wheesht.

VioletSky

I won't be participating in these "discussions" in future. I will just give my thoughts and move on.

I have no respect for the way some leaning towards gender critical engage in them at all and don't want to be associated with that in future.

Ok off you go then. If you feel we GCF are beneath you, that you have nothing to learn from us, nothing positive or challenging you can give to us - ok

GagaJo I am a feminist, Gender Critical and both my belief and science says that sex, male or female, is biological and immutable, and should not be conflated with gender which can change at the whim of a moment, without even the need to make any effort to change appearance, structure or behaviour to match the claimed gender.
If you want to call it a point of view and that makes you happier, no one can stop you. It won’t hurt anyone.
My main concern in all this is that women’s (AHF) rights are not eroded by those who want them for themselves.
I could put more, but what I want to say has already been put much more succinctly by Doodledog, Chewbacca, Galaxy, Rosie51 and others.

No its not definitive because (who knew) those who are gender critical hold a variety of different perspectives on this, as previously discussed myself and doodledog hold quite different views on many aspects. As those who are anti abortion also have different reasons for their opinions. However I do know and listen to a lot of gender critical views and they are not at all what was described.

I've been out all day, but just want to say for the record I totally reject trisher's accusation against me. I have not heard a word from GN so if trisher has reported me they've not progressed it in any way.

Galaxy

No its not definitive because (who knew) those who are gender critical hold a variety of different perspectives on this, as previously discussed myself and doodledog hold quite different views on many aspects. As those who are anti abortion also have different reasons for their opinions. However I do know and listen to a lot of gender critical views and they are not at all what was described.

Yes, there is no Stonewall-type guidance for GCFs, with points awarded for agreeing with a list of tents of faith.

What GCFs have in common (I think - someone will correct me if I've got it wrong) is a belief that sex and gender are different, and that sex cannot be changed.

I am willing to go along with the idea that someone can transition into the opposite sex if they take hormones and have operations, and I will use their preferred pronouns and accept them as though they are who they say they are. They won't become that sex, but I'm happy for them to live their best lives, and don't object to their being in the single-sex spaces appropriate to their transitioned role. I think that they should still identify on sex (as opposed to gender) grounds when filling in forms that are part of research projects, though.

I have serious problems with people identifying as women when they have not changed their bodies or hormones and having that taken as fact because of 'inclusion' policies that insist on it. I strongly object to the language being corrupted so that words for women and female things no longer mean anything. I don't agree that women should have no say on whether they are intimately touched or examined by a member of the opposite sex, or whether they want to share changing rooms or hospital wards with anyone other than other women.

Others disagree, and I understand and respect their objections. My own views are not fixed - they have evolved as this issue has become more prominent, and may change as new information becomes available, or if I learn something to change my mind. I won't be bullied into it though, and #Nodebate is never going to move the situation forward, as far as I am concerned.

Rosie, I didn't think there was any substance to it. Intimidation is not your style - don't worry about it. It is easy to accuse someone and run, but anyone who has read this, or any of the numerous threads on this subject will be aware of where the bad behaviour has come from.

I have no respect for the way some leaning towards gender critical engage in them at all and don't want to be associated with that in future.

Good grief, the pomposity of this statement! Luckily, I don’t feel the need for respect to be bestowed upon me by anonymous persons on the internet.

I'd agree with all of that Doodledog; like you, I have no issue whatsoever as to how anyone identifies themselves, dresses or what pronoun they use. I'll support them in gaining independent recognition, but not at the expense of the safe spaces that natal women have fought for for the last 100 years. I will not give up fighting for ours. Nor will I concede that, to give them an identity, I should relinquish mine. I happily accept that there are dozens of permutations of gender: change to whichever one you like, whenever you like. But you will never convince me that anyone can change their sex. It is immutable.

It's given us a laugh though SueDonim!

Chewbacca

It's given us a laugh though SueDonim!

Yes, 'some people' can be relied upon for that. Which is just as well, in the circumstances.

Having said that, I've just read back my previous post, and spotted the 'tents of faith' typo?. What with that and condoms in heads, I'm not doing so badly in the numpty stakes myself, am I?