The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

snowberryZ

^they are just trying to love their authenitc selves as who they are on the inside^

Someone's swallowed the koolaid.

It’s like a parody at times, isn’t it?

When I see things that have supposedly been said that haven't, I wonder if I've been drinking koolaid!

You consistently imagine that it is possible to tell a transperson from a cis person in spite of much evidence to the contary

I beg to differ.
Trust me, . mmost people 'can^ tell the difference between a transwoman and a woman.
The brain is good at picking up subtle differences between the sexes, no matter what the person has or hasn't had done.
Even if a person has extensive feminisation surgery such as the jawline softened, forehead reshaped, adams apple revised or vocal cord surgery, plus hair transplants, they will still look like transwomen and not like a woman.
It's not being unkind to state this. Its fact.

Does that happen? I don’t know any women with full beards. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but women with the same sorts of beards as men are very rare, surely?
And there you have evidence of how very deep the gender norms ideology actually goes. Because just as there are women who could grow full beards (but don't because society rejects that) there are men who have difficulty growing a beard (but don't say so because it impinges on their masculinity). But the concept that men have beards and women don't is so deeeply imbedded in us that anyone with a beard is immediately going to be judged a man. Because of course women can't do it.
(It's also interesting how it suits people to use the concept of "it's very rare" to justify their own prejudices but don't accept the same concept when it's used to challenge them)

they are just trying to love their authenitc selves as who they are on the inside

Someone's swallowed the koolaid.

Haven't they just!

snowberryZ

^You consistently imagine that it is possible to tell a transperson from a cis person in spite of much evidence to the contary^

I beg to differ.
Trust me, . mmost people 'can^ tell the difference between a transwoman and a woman.
The brain is good at picking up subtle differences between the sexes, no matter what the person has or hasn't had done.
Even if a person has extensive feminisation surgery such as the jawline softened, forehead reshaped, adams apple revised or vocal cord surgery, plus hair transplants, they will still look like transwomen and not like a woman.
It's not being unkind to state this. Its fact.

I very much doubt that.
But anyway this is interesting and there is a bit about brain function and sex and the foetus in it.
www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/19/becoming-nicole/
So identical twins born male but one has transitioned. And yet they are still identical, but their gender is completely obvious.

Plymouth University are in bother with some of the biological female students:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10742211/Plymouth-University-tells-women-not-challenge-people-think-men-using-toilets.html

This thread is about the law as it stand on sex trisher, not gender.

snowberryZ

^You consistently imagine that it is possible to tell a transperson from a cis person in spite of much evidence to the contary^

I beg to differ.
Trust me, . mmost people 'can^ tell the difference between a transwoman and a woman.
The brain is good at picking up subtle differences between the sexes, no matter what the person has or hasn't had done.
Even if a person has extensive feminisation surgery such as the jawline softened, forehead reshaped, adams apple revised or vocal cord surgery, plus hair transplants, they will still look like transwomen and not like a woman.
It's not being unkind to state this. Its fact.

I agree. I think it's hard to define and explain , but women and men tend to move and sit differently. Hands and feet are shaped differently. It's very subtle, but it's there, and with other signs, it is fairly apparent.

Of course, at a casual glance, these things may not be noticed, but if you were near someone for any length of time, or watching them on TV, it is always pretty obvious.

trisher

You consistently imagine that it is possible to tell a transperson from a cis person in spite of much evidence to the contary.

What evidence? And more importantly . . .

What has that to do with the dishonesty of those TW misrepresenting themselves as female in situations where being male is not acceptable?
Do you approve of dishonesty, if it’s committed by trans?

It’s always the same responses

Only a small number of TW harm females (so it doesn’t matter).

Look at all these figures from other groups who harm females (so TW harming females doesn’t matter).

Trans have existed for years with no problems; so objecting to those who are now intent on causing harm to AHF isn’t “being kind”.

Being asked about TW harming females-can’t refute that . . . so let’s change the wording of the accusation from female to woman and answer the question that will support my POV.

Can’t give an unequivocal answer so . . . let’s bring in a deviation.

Incidentally, I’m still waiting for answers to my questions.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-871121-images-1.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-588048-images.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-896391-images.jpg

Ok let's play spot the transwoman. Can you?

I have never said harm to females (or for that matter women) doesn't matter.
I have asked (and I would have imagined anyone really interested in protecting women would want to know) why is there suddenly such a focus on the issue of transwomen and on assaults by strangers in public places? while all the evidence is that women are for the most part assaulted by men they have a relationship with.
As I haven't in anyway approved of any assaults your post about being kind is completly unfounded.
I have always used the word woman to designate gender in discussion and the word female to designate sex.
Of course if you don't appreciate or understand that discussion is difficult
So once again
Transwomen are women. They are not female. They cannot enter or use female spaces or facilities even if they have a GRC if their presence would prevent ciswomen using it.
Molygo I told you ages ago I was taught not to answer people who couldn't ask politely.

trisher

^Does that happen? I don’t know any women with full beards. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but women with the same sorts of beards as men are very rare, surely?^
And there you have evidence of how very deep the gender norms ideology actually goes. Because just as there are women who could grow full beards (but don't because society rejects that) there are men who have difficulty growing a beard (but don't say so because it impinges on their masculinity). But the concept that men have beards and women don't is so deeeply imbedded in us that anyone with a beard is immediately going to be judged a man. Because of course women can't do it.
(It's also interesting how it suits people to use the concept of "it's very rare" to justify their own prejudices but don't accept the same concept when it's used to challenge them)

I’m not denying that gender norms exist though! Do you bother to read people’s posts? If you had, you would see that my whole point was that it would be better to reduce the links between gender and sex, so that people could conform to whatever norms they prefer (which would mean that they were no longer gender norms, I suppose), and there would be no need to insist on ‘acceptance’ as a member of the opposite sex.

The differences between not allowing men into women’s spaces/changing the language/banning sex-based cheating at sport and recognising that women on rare occasions have enough facial hair to be called a beard are many.
The first is a danger to women, whereas facial hair is not.
The first is becoming less rare, whereas unless male hormones are being taken, the second is not.
The first is a legislative matter, the second is biological.
Laws are made to benefit the greatest number, on the whole, and exemptions can be made if some groups are likely to be harmed by laws with which they are unable to comply.
Finally, and most importantly, I have never heard of anyone being hurt by a beard - whether on the face of a man or a woman. Have you?

It is interesting, if predictable, that I answered every one of your points, but you picked out one in the reply and ignored the rest, either misunderstanding or twisting it to mean the opposite of what I said, and ended with a less than subtle ‘some people’ dig which stand up to no sort of scrutiny.

Why does it matter if we can spot the transwoman? I don’t understand the relevance. Laws are not made based on feelings or appearances - those things are subjective and cannot be applied equally to all.

trisher

Ok let's play spot the transwoman. Can you?

I would hazard a guess at the blonde woman.

Still unsure why trisher is supposed to have all the answers and why she is treated like she is paid to guve her time to them.

You all have google.

Go talk to some trsns people

Do you think we don’t talk to transpeople? Or use google?

As for being expected to have all the answers, we are supposed to solve all the incidental issues surrounding laws that we don’t want or support - every other post is met with ‘Ah, but how will you enforce that?’ Or ‘how can you tell’?

I vote for the blonde one, too, btw.

Doodledog

Do you think we don’t talk to transpeople? Or use google?

As for being expected to have all the answers, we are supposed to solve all the incidental issues surrounding laws that we don’t want or support - every other post is met with ‘Ah, but how will you enforce that?’ Or ‘how can you tell’?

I vote for the blonde one, too, btw.

Yes, but from a still photo, it is difficult. Without movement, I was just guessing.

Caitlin Jenner, from a still photo, looks the part. Until Jenner is interviewed, then the movement etc gives it away.

Even from a photo you can tell, I think. I know what you mean about movement, though. I have no idea whether it is because of things like length of bones or whether it is a learnt gender norm, but it’s there. Nature or nurture, I suppose.

She looks good (the blonde one). All of them do. But I still don’t know what their trans status has to do with anything, or why their ability to ‘pass’ matters in this context.

I didn't try with the photos, im not going to sit here and judge women by appearance

VioletSky

I didn't try with the photos, im not going to sit here and judge women by appearance

It is rather judgey, I agree, and as i say, I don’t understand the relevance. I don’t think it is good manners to ignore a direct request, though - unkind, if you like.

I was brought up to respond, even if it is to say ‘I don’t know’, or ‘I’d rather not if you don’t mind’.

YMMV, obviously.

Get them to move and talk, like, you
know, REAL people do, as opposed to a couple of staric one dimensional photos from a magazine, and we will soon tell you.

Static

I think the "sudden focus" is because women don't want men in their safe spaces trisher and this is becoming a worry when intact men can identify as women and access those spaces.

There's also the frequently cited cases where they compete unfairly against women in sport. You say "they cannot enter or use female spaces even if they have a GRC if their presence would prevent ciswomen using it" and yet, their presence in sport is preventing women from competing on a level play field.

If women are put off using female spaces because they know there's a possibility that an intact male may be using it too, that's preventing them from using those facilities.

As for "let's play spot the transwoman" this isn't a game, for many it's a serious and worrying issue.

Laws are not made based on feelings or appearances - those things are subjective and cannot be applied equally to all exactly DD.

You say that TW are women but are not female!! A woman is an adult female.

Absolutely agree about movement.
Also movement plus mannerisms.
Also it's about different angles. From a side angle you will see the sloping male forehead and the way the eyes are set back from the forehead.
There are loads of other little differences.
Male shaped skull
The square jaw line.
The ever so carefully, modulated way of speaking to try and sound more feminine.
The big hands.
The overly long male ring finger.
The narrow hips.
Wide shoulders.
Lack of defined waist.
Big male feet.
Long legs
Muscly calves
Lack of fat on thighs which mean trousers don't look right.
A way of walking.
That's just a few.
I could go on and on.

All those things on their own wouldn't mean much
But when the human eye sees all these things together, the subconscious makes an accurate judgement and identifies that person as being a Man. Despite any superficial outward appearances such as hair, breasts and a dress

trisher

I have never said harm to females (or for that matter women) doesn't matter.
I have asked (and I would have imagined anyone really interested in protecting women would want to know) why is there suddenly such a focus on the issue of transwomen and on assaults by strangers in public places? while all the evidence is that women are for the most part assaulted by men they have a relationship with.
As I haven't in anyway approved of any assaults your post about being kind is completly unfounded.
I have always used the word woman to designate gender in discussion and the word female to designate sex.
Of course if you don't appreciate or understand that discussion is difficult
So once again
Transwomen are women. They are not female. They cannot enter or use female spaces or facilities even if they have a GRC if their presence would prevent ciswomen using it.
Molygo I told you ages ago I was taught not to answer people who couldn't ask politely.

Trasher I told you ages ago I was taught that people who answered a different question from the one that was asked were just being rude.