The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Also doodledogthere are scientists that say there are differences between the male and female brain and scientists that say there aren't or at least they are negligible at birth.

Let's say brains are not sexed at all, there would be only 2 things that shape us.

1, the hormones that our bodies produce

2, what society teaches us about who we are

On point 1, there are already scientists that are researching whether the human brain can be "washed" with the wrong type of hormones for their organs at some stage in development. Either during gestation or shortly afterwards. This would go a long way towards explaining gender dysphoria

On point 2, society teachings, well obviously we fight that continuously. The physical differences mean men are stronger and more powerful and come with equipment capable of rape (as it is defined by UK law). But if brains aren't sexed, women can be and are abusive in many ways. They are capable of violating others mentally and physically. They allow or commit appalling acts against each other and sometimes their own children.

So if we ever reach a utopia where, we are viewed and respected for our brains only and not our physical differences and we successfully eliminate the abusive element that can come from the minds of men and women (even though that doesn't deny the general damage to others in society has come from predominantly men)...

What happens if trans people still exist? Can we accept point one, that on some biological level, trans women feel like women and can be accepted as such?

Also, if you say that the transwomen who have altered their bodies have shown that their feelings are real, what does that say about the ones who don't? Are men who say they are women but don't alter their bodies different from those who do?

As we seem to agree, 'presenting as' a women is not easy to define (in my case because I resist the idea that women are simply people who conform to a particular set of gender stereotypes). So are men who don't make any effort to look like women (eg by keeping a full beard and visible male pattern baldness) to be taken seriously as women? If so, why? If not, to what extent should they have to conform to a stereotype to be accepted as female, and where does that leave butch lesbians and/or women who don't go in for lipstick powder and paint?

I don't agree intersectional feminsim puts men before women in any way, just equal too. It is the principle of equality for everyone, which means raising our children to be tolerant and respectful to each other, raising our children so that they don't have to conform to gender stereotypes, that they can achieve and be anything in life. Working towards that utopia where no one is forced to suffer abuse or discrimination and no safe spaces are needed any longer.

Human nature makes that an incredibly difficult fight but its a fight worth having and its a fight feminist have been winning one battle at a time

I accept that there are transwomen who 'feel like' women (although as nobody can have been both make and female it is difficult to know how they can tell). I have no problem with their 'living as' women, or at least as their idea of how women should live.

My issue, which I have reiterated a million times, is with their expectation that their feelings should overrule those of women, and allow them access to women's spaces, that the language should be altered to erase women from it, that they should be able to muscle in on sporting achievements and that they should be able to remove the right to informed consent from women who do not agree that TWAW and would prefer to have the right to refuse intimate contact.

Doodledog

Also, if you say that the transwomen who have altered their bodies have shown that their feelings are real, what does that say about the ones who don't? Are men who say they are women but don't alter their bodies different from those who do?

As we seem to agree, 'presenting as' a women is not easy to define (in my case because I resist the idea that women are simply people who conform to a particular set of gender stereotypes). So are men who don't make any effort to look like women (eg by keeping a full beard and visible male pattern baldness) to be taken seriously as women? If so, why? If not, to what extent should they have to conform to a stereotype to be accepted as female, and where does that leave butch lesbians and/or women who don't go in for lipstick powder and paint?

I cannot really comment about individual trans people so those comments are general toward trans being valid. Ie: evidence that gender dysphoria is real and people genuinely believe their bodies are wrong for them.

It could be that some trans people don't fully transition because some transition is enough for them and they can learn to love their bodies despite the gender dysphoria.

It could be fear of acceptance or fear of surgery or they tried hormones and the side effects were insurmountable..

It could be that some people aren't actually trans at all and have different agendas

I'm guessing, it could be lots of things

I think the best thing to do would be to ask them

Your last post is getting back to the sanctimony that is so infuriating. Are you suggesting that others did not bring our children up to value tolerance and respect? If not, you might want o consider rephrasing your posts so that that is not coming through loud and clear.

By that I meant your post of 00.29 - we are out of synch now.

I think the best thing to do would be to ask them

Is this a serious answer? You would ask someone who makes no effort to look like a woman why he wants to be accepted as one and allowed into a communal changing room and take his answer as gospel?

Would that be before or after you let your daughter undress in front of him?

Doodledog

Your last post is getting back to the sanctimony that is so infuriating. Are you suggesting that others did not bring our children up to value tolerance and respect? If not, you might want o consider rephrasing your posts so that that is not coming through loud and clear.

No it doesn't, it doesn't say that at all.

I can only guess at why this is an issue and say that perhaps in your determination to have your feminism be the "correct" type of feminism, what you are overlooking is that actually our feminsim does have many many things in common.

I said this earlier but explaining what Femisim is to me doesn't say anything negative about anyone else

In fact, it just highlights our common ground which is a good thing is it not?

Given that I also know that making digs or otherwise being bitchy or making assumptions about others would do nothing but weaken my own point, I won't engage in it.

It's your choice of you listen to that

Doodledog

*I think the best thing to do would be to ask them*

Is this a serious answer? You would ask someone who makes no effort to look like a woman why he wants to be accepted as one and allowed into a communal changing room and take his answer as gospel?

Would that be before or after you let your daughter undress in front of him?

Again, I don't like or agree with communal changing spaces for lots of reasons and prefer separate secure facilities as I have always said.

One of my daughters has a good reason why she doesn't want to get changed in front of anyone because she has been bullied by other girls

Also there are many women out there who grow facial hair due to medical conditions and some who have embraced that about themselves because why should they conform to feminine standards of beauty when they can be beautiful just as they are without social norms

I'm not desperate to have 'my feminism' validated. I just dislike being patronised.

I'm not sure why the fact that your daughter doesn't like changing in front of anyone would make you feel that it's ok for her to do it (knowingly or otherwise) in front of men.

As we both know (I made it clear in a previous post, so I don't know why you are confused) I wasn't talking about women like Lettie Lutz - I was talking about men who make no effort to look like anything other than men, but still muscle in on women's events, into their spaces and so on.

doodledog I'm not patronising you.

That's how I raise my children, if you had volunteered that information first i would just think "that's great, I'm so glad" and I wouldn't think anything more of it.

We are different people who think and communicate differently that is literally all.

You hate being told what you mean, so do I, why can't you accept that I'm passionate about feminsim and raising my children with feminist principles Why is that being turned into something wrong?

Also I'm no official spokes person, I don't have all the answers. Part of the reason why I accept trans women as women is because I don't have all the answers. I just see the evidence, especially when I read the stories of trans women in my feminist group and they are as individual as we are.

One member has transitioned and detransitioned and was validated through both. They don't regret transitioning and although they had top surgery to remove their breasts, they love themselves as they are now, a woman without breasts.

Now in other circles they faced abuse, first for transitioning and then by some vocal trans who didn't support their detransition. Our group supported both decisions and didn't give voice to either group that were abusive. None. Its not welcome.

trisher

Anyone watching the SAS programme? Try picking out the transman.

Holly, obviously. I think it's very apparent.

I've got no problem with Holly entering this, of course, because it's not a "single sex" show.

Holly even says that strangers have shouted abuse, although I don't know why they would.

trisher

DiamondLily

trisher

Doodledog

trisher

The problem with older feminists is that they sometimes fail to recognise that feminism has moved on. They are stuck in the 1970s and like many left leaning men fail to acknowledge or recognise their own privilege and the degree of discrimination suffered by some women and other minorities. It's a big mistake to think that age gives you any sort of real advantage when looking at how society is developing.

I should have known it would be a problem with us personally ??

I am not ‘stuck’ anywhere. I am older than I was - as are you, in case you hadn’t noticed! Like many on here, I have children and young family, and I work with young people-I’m not some kind of fossil who lives separated from the zeitgeist. I don’t think that age matters in this, but since you brought it up, I believe that you are more than 10 years older than me (I am 62). What makes you think you are different from the rest of us, and somehow still in touch??

Did you mean to go on to discuss men, or was that a cut and paste you forgot to edit? There have always been ‘brocialists’ (leftie men with old-fashioned ideas about women). In fact their heyday was probably the 70s when their type led the unions and much of the LP. My dad was one, and in the 70s (when I was a teenager ?) I seemed to spend most of my time arguing with him about his attitudes. My ideas are no more aligned with his than with any point in history- they are influenced by now, and by other women.

As for privilege- anyone and everyone who posts on here has a certain amount of privilege. Are only the poor and downtrodden allowed an opinion, or are you also suggesting that you alone are able to rise above your privilege (as well as your age) and, unlike the rest of us, think for yourself?

Talk about misguided superiority - your post is mindblowing in its arrogance.

No why should I think my age gives me any advantage over others who live in a very different world to the one I do. I think if you isolate yourself and only gather opinions from those close to you or your own age then your view will be restricted. It's why I constantly try to open myself up to younger people and those who are still active. It sometimes means that I am challenged and I wonder "What the hell is going on" But then on reflection I often find that a problem I had largely ignored is being dealt with.
I've had a few videos sent recently where the person starts with a long description of themselves, took me a while to realise they are making them inclusive for the visually impaired. Something I hadn't thought of doing.
Of course if we don't admit there are better ways towards more equality we really can't achieve it can we?

Hmm...my grandchildren are aged between 18-26. My Step granchildren are aged between 26-30. We "mix", on social occasions, family occasions etc, with them, their various partners and their mates.

They vary between college students, Uni students and workers.

We have just got back from a lunchtime bar-be-que with some of them, although not all.

Not one of the females agreed with your new all singin', all dancin' branch of new feminism, in promoting that biological men can now be women.

They thought it was nonsense, and reading the posts on MN (also younger, I assume), not very many agree with you.

So, I don't think it can be the case that it's the "older, old fashioned feminists" getting it wrong. ?

Well I can see several things wrong here
Firstly as I wasn't there and you presumably presented what you imagine are my feminist views (which you completely oppose) I doubt the quality of the information.
Secondly I would imagine many of your relations come from the same background as yourself.
Thirdly knowing your views the young people were too polite to contradict and argue with you at a social occasion.

I didn't by the way say these ideas were solely supported by older old fashioned feminists I said it was harder for them to adjust to new ideas and to move forward.

I didn't represent or mention your views.

We were talking about the situation and politics - whether politicians should say, honestly, what they think a woman is. And whether previously "female only" areas should remain that way.

The young women there wanted their "spaces" kept for biological women. They didn't support the view that TW were women.

They supported the right of anyone to live as they want to be - but not to try and shove biological women to one side, doing so.

And, to be honest, we have some pretty robust discussions, with and as a family, about many subjects, and no one ever feels the need to be polite or appease me - we're a gobby East-end family lol

Feminism. That’s now another word that some females-who support anything and everything whether it’s right or wrong and especially if it’s harmful to females and supports males in whatever guise they choose to present themselves in the interests of “being kind” have demeaned, just like men did with the word “woman” in 2004.

Raising your children with that sort of “feminist” principles? ??

This century has seen the abuse of AHF rise to new heights-not just by the men who always abused them, recorded as abuse by males;
not even just by women who abuse other women, recorded as abuse by females.

Now there is abuse of females by males claiming to be females who want their crime to be recorded as committed by a female and to be housed with females giving opportunity to commit further abuse.
There are even females in some places who blatantly support that.

There is abuse of females who can no longer trust that the person who comes to attend to them will be an AHF, not a male falsely misrepresenting himself as female.
There is abuse of females who can no longer feel safe from males even in the midst of psychiatric trauma caused by a male, because males have the right to falsely misrepresent themselves as female and those upset by this or trying to help the females are called transphobic and threatened with job loss.

This is doubly wrong, because what they are experiencing is androphobia -fear of men, but men have again twisted the language to suit themselves.

Sadly their actions are Supported by the sort of feminists who bow before the patriarchal need to be allowed to do what they want.

You talk as if only your twisted version of feminism cares about those who suffer from gender dysphoria to the extent that they irrevocably change their bodies -sometimes finding that the problem still exists.
Not true. You don’t even have to be feminist to care about them.

You talk about your GD being bullied by girls. I feel for her-it ruins school life and lingers in into adulthood.

You have read on GN and probably on MN how lives are made miserable by bullies. Would you support the bullies who do that?

How is that different from the bullying of AHF that goes on under the guise of “being kind” to transwomen?

Being told “you must accept” you have no rights to spaces free from men who falsely represent themselves as female, even when they have made no effort to appear as females. (Would you say being allowed to complain about bullying stops children being bullied at school? It doesn’t!)

Being told that the tw (male) is more important and should hold the trophy you have just won?
If your GD had come equal first in an all girls race but the other winner a known bully) grabs the cup and stands on the podium and your GD is obliged, by the bully and those who don’t stop the bullying to take second place would you find that acceptable?
I do hope not, but if you would, then that explains the IF attitude to male cheating in female sports.

I’ve not read a post on here that has denied tw the right to live in their chosen guise providing it does not harm or damage or seek to take rights from those who are actually female.

I have however read multiple posts from people who support the bullying of natal females by a section of TW and their allies under the guise of “being kind” and forward thinking.

VioletSky

We believe women's rights are human rights, plain and simple. That means racial justice, LGBTQ rights, rights for disabled people and religious freedom. We will continue the fight against hatred however that's expressed

I don't know who the collective WE are, but as someone disabled, and understanding disability rights campaigners, and the issues, I would advise anyone, amongst that group, who is non-disabled to be very wary of storming in, offering support, comforting words and ideas as to what they think will help those with disabilities.

They can be a very stroppy lot, and one thing that does tend to wind them up is able bodied people involving themselves in disability campaigns and issues.

Many of the more radical disabled people see it as patronising and dis-enabling..

But, this thread isn't about disability, so I'll leave it at that.?

IKWYM, DL, and I think that’s true of most groups. Speaking for others and telling them what’s best for them ‘for their own good’ is the very definition of ‘patronising’ (which, interestingly, has the same root as ‘patriarchy’, but I digress).

This is Nic the transman on the SAS programme. Now for the gender critical Nic is in fact a woman. So if transwomen have to use men's facilities Nic will have to use women's (I don't imagine he wants to but equality in law is important). Now Nic will be harmless but if you can't see that women who are nervous about men are not going to be happy when they see Nic, and if you don't realise that any predatory male would simply have to say he was a transman, and not even bother with a dress, to enter a loo or changing room then you are not thinking things through.
As far as I'm concerned Nic is a man and uses men's facilities. Just like a transwoman is a woman and uses women's

DiamondLily

trisher

Anyone watching the SAS programme? Try picking out the transman.

Holly, obviously. I think it's very apparent.

I've got no problem with Holly entering this, of course, because it's not a "single sex" show.

Holly even says that strangers have shouted abuse, although I don't know why they would.

Holly is a transwoman. Honestly if we are debating it might help to know the difference.
Transwoman- considered male at birth transitions to woman.
Transman- considered female at birth transitions to man

I didn't know the new series was on, so I got the wrong trans woman, (that was last year), and haven't seen this years show. ?

trisher

DiamondLily

trisher

Anyone watching the SAS programme? Try picking out the transman.

Holly, obviously. I think it's very apparent.

I've got no problem with Holly entering this, of course, because it's not a "single sex" show.

Holly even says that strangers have shouted abuse, although I don't know why they would.

Holly is a transwoman. Honestly if we are debating it might help to know the difference.
Transwoman- considered male at birth transitions to woman.
Transman- considered female at birth transitions to man

Yep, my mistake, didn't read it properly, I remember the chat from Holly on that programme, and watching it, and didn't know the new series had started.,

No comment about Nic DiamondLily ?

Well, Holly was a biological man, and Nic is a biological woman.

They are both one sex, identifying as another.

On looks, Nic is certainly more convincing, presenting as a nan, than Holly was, presenting as a woman.

If Nic wants to use a men's toilet, then, obviously, it won't be my worry - I don't use a male toilet.

I haven’t seen the SAS thing, but was waiting for a ‘gotcha’.

What does it matter whether a few people on one thread on here can tell that someone on television is trans?

The important thing is not how identifiable transpeople are (in fact, it’s arguable that the less obvious it is, the more worrying). The important thing, for the gazillionth time, is that they remain the sex they were born, and simply saying otherwise doesn’t change that. Taking agency from women is misogynistic, and that agency is removed when we have no say over who is in our space and/or touching our bodies. Saying otherwise won’t change that, either.