Gender? Sex? Help me out please.

No problem.
If it’s a bearded man in a dress, he’s either a transwoman (TWANW) or going to a fancy dress ball.
If it’s a bearded man in a dress, appearing somewhere that’s meant for females, in any of the situations you mention above, it’s a ill- intentioned transwoman and definitely an AHM.
If a transwoman deliberately appears in the guise of a male, even in a frock, he’s ill-intentioned.

Well, it seems that even the TRAs can't tell the difference between this so-called 'cis men' and a transwomen, so how are the rest of us mortals meant to do it?

Given that it would appear to be impossible, how do we know if any bearded bloke in a dress is a transwoman (and therefore A Woman, whatever that means) or simply a bearded bloke in a dress, and therefore a so-called 'cis man'?

And how do we know whether it's a good idea to let our 12 year old daughter/granddaughter undress in front of him, or whether to get into the next bed in a hospital ward, or agree that he should share the girls' tent in a Guide camp? Would saying no to this 'cis man' doing any of the above be transphobic? Unkind, then? Or basic safeguarding?

Any thoughts?

How are we supposed to be able to tell the difference between the right kind of transwoman and the wrong kind, so that we can keep ourselves safe?

Doh! ^Does it mean that he's a trans woman but not the right sort of trans WOMAN?^apologies, fat finger syndrome!

2) I think 'ill-intentioned trans' are in a tiny minority. Probably a fraction of less than 1%. And that tiny number will include (as I said above) cis men, using it as a disguise to commit crime.
Apart from claiming an ever smaller number of ill-intentioned TW, which we have no proof is true, I’m beginning to like this.

I’ve read GGJ say twice what I’ve been saying for a long time-that some ill-intentioned tw are men using it as a disguise to commit crime.

So GGJ can we also agree that those tw who are males using tw claims as a disguise to commit crime should be incarcerated in male prisons?

Does it mean that he's a trans woman but not the right sort of trans man? A bit like being that elusive woman who is not the right sort of woman that we keep hearing about? Is that what it means?

GagaJo

Sure, we support nut jobs who are actually cis men. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. But then... that's what this is all about. Catastropising and fantasy. Not inhabiting the real world with trans people who are scared, vulnerable and normal people.

This is the real world, GagaJo.

Google it.

We know about the scared and vulnerable transpeople - of course we do. As we keep saying, we are supportive of them. But as you keep saying, you refuse to believe us. I don't know why, but you do.

Anyway. Why do you say that this guy is a 'cis man'? If I said that, I'd be accused of misgendering, not being respectful, transphobic and so on. I would really appreciate an answer to this.

Catastropising (sic) and fantasy. Not inhabiting the real world with trans people who are scared, vulnerable and normal people.

Your reply baffles me Gagajo; this person is a publicly lauded example of an erudite trans woman. He's been given a platform, that was widely publicised as being "long awaited" and "much anticipated" so it appears that he has some degree of merit and respect within the trans community. It would appear that the trans community consider him to ve a long way off being
a nut job

Sure, we support nut jobs who are actually cis men. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. But then... that's what this is all about. Catastropising and fantasy. Not inhabiting the real world with trans people who are scared, vulnerable and normal people.

It is indeed Doodledog.
Are the trans activists and their allies comfortable with the fact that their promotion of anyone being able to self id as a woman, and who threatens to "break the face" of anyone who questions him, has resulted in this?

From what I’ve read, yes they are happy about it. Some claim that they’d never support his violence, but supporting the person indicates support for the actions.

These days, the 'man' may claim to be a woman, so not only does a male voice dominate, but he gets top billing, too, and the added bonus that the whole performance is seen as 'inclusive'.

Exactly so Doodledog; there is clearly a shortage of women poets who could eulogise and celebrate on what it is to be a woman, and so we have to have a man, who wants to celebrate his "beard, dick and testosterone" instead. Another woman pushed off the podium to make way for a man. But I'm interested on hearing from the trans supporters and allies as to whether this is what they envisioned in the brave new world.

Yes, Doodledog, it’s a different matter entirely

'Drawing on her experience of womanhood' ?

I'd hazard a guess that that experience is rather different from mine!

The Poet In The City festival is using poetry as a medium to celebrate women's lives, and is a great idea, but why does it have to be 'topped and tailed' by a transwoman with a beard? Is there not enough to celebrate in the lives of women, without it all having to be validated by someone so obviously male?

Can the TRAs not see that this sort of thing, along with the IWD debacle at the Vagina Museum and many more similar examples, is undermining women? This is exactly what so-called GC feminists complain about when we say that we are being asked to move aside for men. It's the Artistic equivalent of the ads where women enthusiastically discussed floor cleaners until a male voice chimed in to explain the science, known in the trade as 2CK (two Cwords in a kitchen) in case you were in any doubt about the relative status of the male and female voices, or the more recent ones where a simpering woman is told by her male neighbour about the benefits of an over 50 funeral plan. Women are humoured by being given a voice (after all, they are the ones buying the floor cleaner or the funeral plans) but it needs to be validated by a man. That sort of thing was denounced by feminists decades ago, although it still goes on.

These days, the 'man' may claim to be a woman, so not only does a male voice dominate, but he gets top billing, too, and the added bonus that the whole performance is seen as 'inclusive'. If the 'top and tail' poet were a transwoman who lived as female, was a really good poet and didn't make a song and dance about her trans status, fair enough - that could be an extension of what is meant by womanhood, but this is a different matter entirely.

Isn't it?

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-9242-foeqkcwxeac0-yt.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-624343-focq1kjxiaaqrfw.jpeg

This small % want to claim those rights and behave in a way that damages the reputation of most transwomen. Sadly, this second group are vociferously supported by some females.

You're not wrong there MollyGo; this person says that he's a woman. He demands to be acknowledged and respected as such. He does this by saying If SRS is such a fucking privilege, stop degrading our bodies on the basis of transmisogyny. Acknowledge me as a woman- me and My beard and My Dick and all my Testosterone. Then we won't have a problem.
This "dick haver" is, allegedly "A multi disciplinary performance maker, sound designer and composer of Spanish British background. Her work focuses mainly on exploring the socio political boundaries of gender, sexuality and intimacy."

I wonder what a socio political boundary too far is? Are the trans activists and their allies comfortable with the fact that their promotion of anyone being able to self id as a woman, and who threatens to "break the face" of anyone who questions him, has resulted in this? Does it bother you at all? Or do you think it's fine; they're causing no harm?

Ditto Galaxy and Chewbacca.

Ditto Galaxy!

galaxy I'm glad you don't know what I mean

But when it comes to kindness, if that's not reciprocated I agree, to an extent anyway, this is a public forum and if I was rude all the time I might alienate myself from people who I'm not even speaking too

Anyway

I've got a bad habit of saying what I think when it's best to shut up

Sorry VS your post doesn’t mak sense to me. I’ll start with two points to keep it short.

So is having an opinion on one matter based on one's own research a justifiable reason to write off another person in total?
???
What research? Who has been ‘written off in total?

Or a person who went through a physical crisis and behaves out of character for a time unforgivable?
Which person? What crisis? Behaved out of character how?

I dont know what you mean to be honest VS, and I am as wary of 'be kind' as I was of 'stay safe' And I cant tell you how much that used to irritate me .

So is having an opinion on one matter based on one's own research a justifiable reason to write off another person in total?

Or a person who went through a physical crisis and behaves out of character for a time unforgivable?

Or are we all individually responsible for how we conduct ourselves and react to others?

Are we all responsible for taking responsibility and apologising and showing people kindness and respect no matter what our differences or personal struggles?

I agree, Galaxy, that GC is not even a term that we all think applies - it is foisted upon us, as with TERF, transphobic and the assumption that we don't care about transpeople. Speaking personally, I don't find the term offensive, though, as I do criticise the idea that gender is more important than sex, and I find the way that it is sneaking into the language in ways that replace the term 'sex' to be invidious - eg 'same gender attraction' which erases gay people, whose sexuality is based firmly on same-sex attraction.

I see gender-based pronouns as affectations, but can live with them if (and only if) they are not imposed on me, and if (and only if) they do not ever find their way into legal or other official records, such as government statistics or in law courts, where truth is far more important than feelings.

I think the idea that so-called 'misgendering' is heinous is self-indulgent, but again, basic manners dictate that I would always use someone's preferred form of address out of politeness in social situations.

I do compromise on these things, just as in many other areas of life. Why would anyone assume otherwise? It doesn't mean that I think for a second that TWAW, though - they are transwomen, and will never be otherwise, although they are no less worthy as a result.

Of course GC people don't agree on everything. Why would we? There is not a rule book or catechism that we all learn - we have come to our own conclusions individually, and are not sheep.

Galaxy

Thats the whole basis of the debate to be honest VS. You and many others believe TWAW, and other people dont. Thats where the disagreement starts I suppose.
Gender critical feminists dont agree on everything, in fact I would say lots of people on this thread wouldnt class themselves as GC, its the same as people in the labour party dont hold all the same views, or any of the same views in some cases .

Well put Galaxy. It’s the fact that TWANW because they were ‘assigned male at birth” to use some posters favourite phraseology, that is at the root of all of it.

That and, despite the fact that the majority of TW are happy to dress as they like and neither flaunt their male attributes nor claim rights that belong to females, there is a small % who aren’t satisfied with that. This small % want to claim those rights and behave in a way that damages the reputation of most transwomen. Sadly, this second group are vociferously supported by some females.

I'm only using GC to describe those who don't believe people can change sex/gender and not as an insult.

So I hope no one takes it that way

Thats the whole basis of the debate to be honest VS. You and many others believe TWAW, and other people dont. Thats where the disagreement starts I suppose.
Gender critical feminists dont agree on everything, in fact I would say lots of people on this thread wouldnt class themselves as GC, its the same as people in the labour party dont hold all the same views, or any of the same views in some cases .

The science behind why trans people exist is still being researched so I keep an open mind.

It doesnt seem logical that average, every day trans people who are not causing women or anyone else any harm are transitioning for no reason.

In the interim, I either accept they are valid or I don't.

But what I won't do is make a group of people have no space at all.

It really doesn't matter why it is happening when it is clearly happening