Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Glorianny thinks . . .
It is quite an obvious and valid question. If you are going to say transwomen are not women but men in frocks or dressed as women how will you distinguish which are natal women and which trans?
If someone thinks they are really a woman how can it be dishonest to dress as one?

I don’t say any of those things, about men in frocks etc.

You love to dodge the truth -which is that there are males and females.
Men and women are gender terms and no longer necessarily reflect the truth about male and female.

So, once again,
MALES, (men or TW or bi)
whatever gender they feel they are, however they dress,
whether you can distinguish between them,
whether (in your strange world) people announce what gender they are,*
if they go into FEMALE safe spaces, attempt to compete in FEMALE competitions, present themselves when a FEMALE attendant has been requested etc., they are dishonest.
If you condone male dishonesty, that’s your choice and reflects badly on the honest trans who don’t do any of those things.

It's a bit like when women didn't have the vote and weren't invited to debate by men about whether we should get one

Like being invisible

Until women made themselves very visible and heard

It wasn't a debate anyway it was a lecture

If it was a debate, trans people would have been invited to debate her views

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

It's not dishonest to dress as one Glorianny but for some it doesn't stop there does it.

supposed easily offended attitudes stifling debate really VS!!! There's nothing supposed about what happened to KS when there were attempts to prevent her from even appearing, in order to stifle debate.

Children need to be supported and encouraged to wait in case it is a phase they're going through Glorianny. The profound difference between natal and trans women is, that trans women are not women and I need to distinguish between them if an in tact male identifying as/claiming to be a trans woman enters an area specifically designated for women.

If you don't need to distinguish that's up to you but when I and others do we should be entitled to do so without fear of retribution.

Yes, it is rather frustrating when something's posted, referred too by another poster and the issues/questions raised are then ignored Ilovecheese but it's a regular occurrence on these threads and usually denotes that the original poster has no answers to give.

Mollygo

*Personally I don't need to distinguish between them but some people want to.*

And again you attribute what you want to believe, to people who you don’t know.

You might say you think male and female are the same, but it isn’t true, whether you distinguish between them or not.

You may have comprehension problems, but you must have read on here that posters don’t care how people identify, only that they respect female rights e.g to male free safe spaces.

I distinguish between honesty and dishonesty.
I understand from your posts that you find male dishonesty acceptable because you think it’s OK for males to be in female safe spaces, present themselves as female when a female has been requested, or take specific female jobs.

You would probably deny that that is true, because you don’t distinguish between them.

Mollygo It is quite an obvious and valid question. If you are going to say transwomen are not women but men in frocks or dressed as women how will you distinguish which are natal women and which trans?
If someone thinks they are really a woman how can it be dishonest to dress as one?

"People say things like "I always knew I was a girl" or "I knew I was in the wrong body." How do you know? For instance, what does being a woman feel like?"

How do you know you like a certain colour? Believe in god or not? Like playing with dolls or cars? How are we born with individual personalities?

Humans are born with instincts and an identity, we know what we like or not or how we feel

If something seems off, it is because it is off
We grow up on a society where we all observe others and identifying with anything different than expected is ok

Why do we have to justify this to others to be accepted? What an outrageous concept.

I know I am not explaining myself very well.

You dont
If your tell children it's a phase is a description of watchful waiting then that's the current advice from the NHS.

Personally I don't need to distinguish between them but some people want to.

And again you attribute what you want to believe, to people who you don’t know.

You might say you think male and female are the same, but it isn’t true, whether you distinguish between them or not.

You may have comprehension problems, but you must have read on here that posters don’t care how people identify, only that they respect female rights e.g to male free safe spaces.

I distinguish between honesty and dishonesty.
I understand from your posts that you find male dishonesty acceptable because you think it’s OK for males to be in female safe spaces, present themselves as female when a female has been requested, or take specific female jobs.

You would probably deny that that is true, because you don’t distinguish between them.

Anniel

Can I ask if the combatants here would read this Spectator account of Trans ideology. I found it interesting but do not wish to engage in argument.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-ideology-and-the-tyranny-of-feeling/

Golly he has serious problems doesn't he. Feminisation (that's basically women ) is responsible for creating a more emotional society. Now trans people are adding to it. You can tell it's a man writing can't you?

Bluecat

The sad thing about this issue is that it has become impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it, as people such as Kathleen Stock and J K Rowling have discovered.

Back in the '60s and '70s, the argument was that gender was a social construct, the role that society imposed on people according to their sex. Hence the campaign against ideas such as "girls wear pink", "boys play with guns", "real men don't change nappies", "women aren't logical", and so on. I won't say that the battle was won but certainly there was some significant progress. (Although the success which companies have had in selling the idea that "all little girls want to be princesses" makes me wonder!) Now, with trans activism being so mainstream, we seem to have slid back to a 1950s idea of womanhood. I have never seen a description of trans identity which didn't describe a little boy who wants to wear dresses or a man who longs for make-up and high heels. Conversely, transmen's girlhoods always seem to cite a lack of interest in dolls and a great many memories of rough-and-tumble games with boys. The trans identity is always built around stereotypes.

I think this is understandable. People say things like "I always knew I was a girl" or "I knew I was in the wrong body." How do you know? For instance, what does being a woman feel like? I am biologically female, been through girlhood, female puberty, and adult female experiences such as pregnancy, childbirth and menopause, and I couldn't tell you what it feels like to be a woman. In fact, if you rule out biology, how would you know that you're a woman? I think you'd only know by the way society treats you. If you were treated as a man, and your biology was ignored, you'd probably feel that you were a man.

The question that I am trying to ask is whether the supposed inner awareness of "really" being a man or a woman actually exists. I'm not convinced that it does. It seems more likely that some people feel that they don't fit the gender role of their sex, and that they want to change it. That's understandable too. You might feel that you would be more comfortable if you behaved and were treated according to the gender role traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex. Hence the re-emergence of stereotypes - it's easier to say "I want to act like, and be treated like, a woman" if you're wearing long hair, a pretty dress and high heels. Or, in the case of transmen, the requisite stereotypes.

Why is this unacceptable? Why do it have to be some inner female or male self that is trapped in the wrong body? (Some people say that, for instance, transwomen have "female brains". Female brains? What is this, the 19th century?") Why do transwomen have to be categorised as the same of biological women? Why can't they be accepted as transwomen, ie men who are comfortable in the female gender role? This would mean that many issues surrounding women's rights would cease to be problematic, if it was accepted that there was a profound difference between biological women and transwomen, and the latter should be accepted as having a different but respected identity.

If you don't accept that "transwomen are women", you supposedly hate trans people and don't believe that they should exist. This is ridiculous. There are undoubtedly bigots who won't accept transpeople at all, but there must be very many who believe that everyone has the right to choose their own lifestyle (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone) but don't believe that biological sex is unimportant.

So if we ignore all the examples of gender dysphoria, tell children it's just a phase they are going through, and everyone dresses as they wish, please can you explain to me how the "profound difference" between transwomen and natal women will be recognised?
Personally I don't need to distinguish between them but some people want to.

Anniel I find it interesting that in that article it is all about the culture of trans people and their supposed easily offended attitudes stifling debate yet there is nothing about the culture of gender critical feminism...

I think to be truly moderate and sensible in this era people have to look objectively at either extreme end of any debate

When you fail to do so that's bias

Well if I was one of the combatants (?) on here I don't think I would read something someone else asked me to if they weren't willing to discuss it afterwards.

Dickens

Glorianny

Dickens

If I visit a doctor it is a private not a public transaction and not something I do every day. If I ovulate or not is no one's business. My mother never had a period from the age of 25 until her death at 94. A good friend never ovulated or had children after she had cervical cancer at the age of 32. Are you saying their biology mattered and they were not women? You have actually vividly illustrated why it isn't possible to use biology or science in everyday life, because you do not, cannot and should not know the intimacies of anyone else's body unless they choose to tell you about them, and making assumptions or posting generalities about women is demeaning and dangerous for all women.

Isn't this missing the point?

Who is asking to know the intimate details of your body?

The medical relevance to your biological sex might matter if you present to your doctor with the symptoms of a possible heart attack - symptoms which are not infrequently quite different to those presenting in males.

It also might matter in relation to various other conditions and illnesses which are known to statistically affect women more than men - or the other way round.

Whether you ovulate or not won't be of any interest to the wider public, but it might be relevant to a member of the health profession if he or she is attempting to form a diagnosis relating to symptoms you present with.

As for those women who don't ovulate, or haven't for an extended period of time, these are anomalies that usually have a cause - it's no different to men who have difficulty peeing, or all the other things that don't work properly with the male anatomy. They are not the norm and it's quite useful for a doctor to know whether you're a biological male or female when he or she is attempting to figure out what's gone wrong. Unless you think the intimate details of your body are not their concern either unless you choose to tell them?

There is absolutely no point in reposting the reply to a question if you don't post the whole discussion.

For the record I said that biology doesn't impact on my everyday life. I was then told that it did if I went to the doctor and it did when I ovulated.
My post showed how those statements were completely untrue. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how being biologically a woman is something I use in my everyday life, or something I can possibly know about another woman.

As usual on these threads something is taken out of context because some are so desperate to prove the unprovable.

I think it is quite obvious that I was pointing out that biological sex can matter in a medical setting.

I didn't mention how it might not matter to you on a daily basis because I was talking in general terms - only mentioning you in the context of where 'biology' might be relevant.

Then please do not take things I have said and repost them out of context.
You have plainly misunderstood my post which was not about medical care but about everyday life.

Can I ask if the combatants here would read this Spectator account of Trans ideology. I found it interesting but do not wish to engage in argument.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-ideology-and-the-tyranny-of-feeling/

Bluecat a very good post, thank you. You are so spot on with
I have never seen a description of trans identity which didn't describe a little boy who wants to wear dresses or a man who longs for make-up and high heels. Conversely, transmen's girlhoods always seem to cite a lack of interest in dolls and a great many memories of rough-and-tumble games with boys. The trans identity is always built around stereotypes.

It's so backwards isn't it? All those years fighting stereotypes and we're back where we began and maybe even worse.

Glorianny

Dickens

If I visit a doctor it is a private not a public transaction and not something I do every day. If I ovulate or not is no one's business. My mother never had a period from the age of 25 until her death at 94. A good friend never ovulated or had children after she had cervical cancer at the age of 32. Are you saying their biology mattered and they were not women? You have actually vividly illustrated why it isn't possible to use biology or science in everyday life, because you do not, cannot and should not know the intimacies of anyone else's body unless they choose to tell you about them, and making assumptions or posting generalities about women is demeaning and dangerous for all women.

Isn't this missing the point?

Who is asking to know the intimate details of your body?

The medical relevance to your biological sex might matter if you present to your doctor with the symptoms of a possible heart attack - symptoms which are not infrequently quite different to those presenting in males.

It also might matter in relation to various other conditions and illnesses which are known to statistically affect women more than men - or the other way round.

Whether you ovulate or not won't be of any interest to the wider public, but it might be relevant to a member of the health profession if he or she is attempting to form a diagnosis relating to symptoms you present with.

As for those women who don't ovulate, or haven't for an extended period of time, these are anomalies that usually have a cause - it's no different to men who have difficulty peeing, or all the other things that don't work properly with the male anatomy. They are not the norm and it's quite useful for a doctor to know whether you're a biological male or female when he or she is attempting to figure out what's gone wrong. Unless you think the intimate details of your body are not their concern either unless you choose to tell them?

There is absolutely no point in reposting the reply to a question if you don't post the whole discussion.

For the record I said that biology doesn't impact on my everyday life. I was then told that it did if I went to the doctor and it did when I ovulated.
My post showed how those statements were completely untrue. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how being biologically a woman is something I use in my everyday life, or something I can possibly know about another woman.

As usual on these threads something is taken out of context because some are so desperate to prove the unprovable.

I think it is quite obvious that I was pointing out that biological sex can matter in a medical setting.

I didn't mention how it might not matter to you on a daily basis because I was talking in general terms - only mentioning you in the context of where 'biology' might be relevant.

If you don't accept that "transwomen are women", you supposedly hate trans people and don't believe that they should exist. This is ridiculous. There are undoubtedly bigots who won't accept transpeople at all, but there must be very many who believe that everyone has the right to choose their own lifestyle (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone) but don't believe that biological sex is unimportant.

In a nutshell, this is it.

Good post.

Bluecat a welcome contribution. Your post highlighted many of the current problems.

Bluecat Good post. It's what many people have been saying on here for years now. The whole trans issue is predicated on dated stereotypes that women fought hard to get free of.

Smileless2012

As the article states "Transgender issues have been heavily discussed on social media over the last year, which may have
led to an increase in related hate crimes". For me, this correlates with what I posted about an increase in concern and vigilance.

Immediately following the paragraph quoting Suella Braverman saying "a woman has two X chromosomes, a woman gives birth, a woman does not have a penis", is a reference to the Galop view that, "transphobic narratives in the media and by senior politicians has been allowed to grow without challenge and are translating into violence against our community".

What she said was factual and not transphobic so how do we know that there's an increase in transphobia, when what's being said is deemed as transphobic when as in this particular example, it isn't?

I think transphobia is decidedly visible if you visit SM sites.

Some posting make no bones about it and use derogatory language and clearly have no intention of engaging in reasoned debate. Some of their ramblings, it has to be said, are not infrequently inarticulate rants.

I believe it's definitely a 'thing'. Encouraged of course by the tabloid media headlines.

But what do we do? Allow such people to dictate - so that in an effort to keep them quiet we avoid all discussion or mention of the matter? Or any other matter, come to that - because tyrants and bullies will always try to stifle the opposition. Should we give in to them by not talking about important matters in case we wake the sleeping beasts, and just cower, hoping that everyone can live as normal a life as possible without attracting their notice?

Glorianny
For the record I said that biology doesn't impact on my everyday life.

Yes it does. If you are female, you know you are female every day. There are things you do because you are female, though these may change at different times in your life.

The sad thing about this issue is that it has become impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it, as people such as Kathleen Stock and J K Rowling have discovered.

Back in the '60s and '70s, the argument was that gender was a social construct, the role that society imposed on people according to their sex. Hence the campaign against ideas such as "girls wear pink", "boys play with guns", "real men don't change nappies", "women aren't logical", and so on. I won't say that the battle was won but certainly there was some significant progress. (Although the success which companies have had in selling the idea that "all little girls want to be princesses" makes me wonder!) Now, with trans activism being so mainstream, we seem to have slid back to a 1950s idea of womanhood. I have never seen a description of trans identity which didn't describe a little boy who wants to wear dresses or a man who longs for make-up and high heels. Conversely, transmen's girlhoods always seem to cite a lack of interest in dolls and a great many memories of rough-and-tumble games with boys. The trans identity is always built around stereotypes.

I think this is understandable. People say things like "I always knew I was a girl" or "I knew I was in the wrong body." How do you know? For instance, what does being a woman feel like? I am biologically female, been through girlhood, female puberty, and adult female experiences such as pregnancy, childbirth and menopause, and I couldn't tell you what it feels like to be a woman. In fact, if you rule out biology, how would you know that you're a woman? I think you'd only know by the way society treats you. If you were treated as a man, and your biology was ignored, you'd probably feel that you were a man.

The question that I am trying to ask is whether the supposed inner awareness of "really" being a man or a woman actually exists. I'm not convinced that it does. It seems more likely that some people feel that they don't fit the gender role of their sex, and that they want to change it. That's understandable too. You might feel that you would be more comfortable if you behaved and were treated according to the gender role traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex. Hence the re-emergence of stereotypes - it's easier to say "I want to act like, and be treated like, a woman" if you're wearing long hair, a pretty dress and high heels. Or, in the case of transmen, the requisite stereotypes.

Why is this unacceptable? Why do it have to be some inner female or male self that is trapped in the wrong body? (Some people say that, for instance, transwomen have "female brains". Female brains? What is this, the 19th century?") Why do transwomen have to be categorised as the same of biological women? Why can't they be accepted as transwomen, ie men who are comfortable in the female gender role? This would mean that many issues surrounding women's rights would cease to be problematic, if it was accepted that there was a profound difference between biological women and transwomen, and the latter should be accepted as having a different but respected identity.

If you don't accept that "transwomen are women", you supposedly hate trans people and don't believe that they should exist. This is ridiculous. There are undoubtedly bigots who won't accept transpeople at all, but there must be very many who believe that everyone has the right to choose their own lifestyle (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone) but don't believe that biological sex is unimportant.

Dickens

^If I visit a doctor it is a private not a public transaction and not something I do every day. If I ovulate or not is no one's business. My mother never had a period from the age of 25 until her death at 94. A good friend never ovulated or had children after she had cervical cancer at the age of 32. Are you saying their biology mattered and they were not women? You have actually vividly illustrated why it isn't possible to use biology or science in everyday life, because you do not, cannot and should not know the intimacies of anyone else's body unless they choose to tell you about them, and making assumptions or posting generalities about women is demeaning and dangerous for all women.^

Isn't this missing the point?

Who is asking to know the intimate details of your body?

The medical relevance to your biological sex might matter if you present to your doctor with the symptoms of a possible heart attack - symptoms which are not infrequently quite different to those presenting in males.

It also might matter in relation to various other conditions and illnesses which are known to statistically affect women more than men - or the other way round.

Whether you ovulate or not won't be of any interest to the wider public, but it might be relevant to a member of the health profession if he or she is attempting to form a diagnosis relating to symptoms you present with.

As for those women who don't ovulate, or haven't for an extended period of time, these are anomalies that usually have a cause - it's no different to men who have difficulty peeing, or all the other things that don't work properly with the male anatomy. They are not the norm and it's quite useful for a doctor to know whether you're a biological male or female when he or she is attempting to figure out what's gone wrong. Unless you think the intimate details of your body are not their concern either unless you choose to tell them?

There is absolutely no point in reposting the reply to a question if you don't post the whole discussion.

For the record I said that biology doesn't impact on my everyday life. I was then told that it did if I went to the doctor and it did when I ovulated.
My post showed how those statements were completely untrue. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how being biologically a woman is something I use in my everyday life, or something I can possibly know about another woman.

As usual on these threads something is taken out of context because some are so desperate to prove the unprovable.