Sunak. Men are men and women are women.

Glorianny

Of course intersex or DSD people are perfectly entitled to use whatever term they find acceptable. And if they do not wish to be involved in any discussion about trans issues that is also their right. However to over simplify facts to fit a preconceived agenda is not acceptable. "Men are men and women are women", very much turns the issue into a "join one side of the other" debate. Which resulted in the past with babies having surgery so they could be put into a category. Most would now see that as completely unacceptable. But what else is "Men are men and women are women" doing? And surgery on these babies is still undertaken and is perfectly legal in many countries.

The point is that categorising and insisting that there are absolutes causes damage.
Only if you open the debate to wider ideas and stop trying to categorise them as this or that. can you look at people as individuals.

The issue of women in sport is one example of how men have mistreated women, and still do so. It is nothing to do with transpeople but to do with trying to set limits to what a woman is and it damages other women. Now you may think that is nothing to do with the statement, but if you believe "women are women" and you set certain standards you may damage other women. They are effectively made non-women, because they don't reach your standard.

Once you accept that there are people who don't fit the two divisions concept then you have to look more carefully at the whole subject
And even if you don't accept it. It seems obvious if some women are not permitted to take part in women's sports it must be "Men are men and women are women and some people are neither" But designating them as "neither" is surely not acceptable.

Perhaps we shouldn't be debating the matter using Sunak's 'catchy' mantra as the yardstick?

Regardless of which side you are taking - most of us believe that he is playing to the gallery - it's not a new ploy is it, and it really doesn't help to talk about the issues involved using his headline-grabbing catchphrase as the benchmark.

Actually all sides of the debate damages those with a dsd, many men with a dsd have been exploited by those in sport, who seek out very young men with a dsd and direct them to womens sport.

The presence of men in womens sports has been incredibly damaging, many athletes are speaking out and many female teams are now refusing to compete.

Of course intersex or DSD people are perfectly entitled to use whatever term they find acceptable. And if they do not wish to be involved in any discussion about trans issues that is also their right. However to over simplify facts to fit a preconceived agenda is not acceptable. "Men are men and women are women", very much turns the issue into a "join one side of the other" debate. Which resulted in the past with babies having surgery so they could be put into a category. Most would now see that as completely unacceptable. But what else is "Men are men and women are women" doing? And surgery on these babies is still undertaken and is perfectly legal in many countries.

The point is that categorising and insisting that there are absolutes causes damage.
Only if you open the debate to wider ideas and stop trying to categorise them as this or that. can you look at people as individuals.

The issue of women in sport is one example of how men have mistreated women, and still do so. It is nothing to do with transpeople but to do with trying to set limits to what a woman is and it damages other women. Now you may think that is nothing to do with the statement, but if you believe "women are women" and you set certain standards you may damage other women. They are effectively made non-women, because they don't reach your standard.

Once you accept that there are people who don't fit the two divisions concept then you have to look more carefully at the whole subject
And even if you don't accept it. It seems obvious if some women are not permitted to take part in women's sports it must be "Men are men and women are women and some people are neither" But designating them as "neither" is surely not acceptable.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

What is the 'third possibility' you mention, Glorianny?

It is intersex as I think you well know Doodledog. Saying they don't want to be part of the trans discussion does not mean they just want to be forgotten. "Man is a man and woman is a woman simply denies their existence.
As it is estimated that 1-2 people in 100 are born intersex they should at least deserve a mention.
Rishi's concept means they must be one or the other, which in the past led to babies being operated on. I don't think anyone wants to see that happening.
www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex
Acknowledging they exist might help.

Not only have I acknowledged that 'they' exist, but I have pointed out that I know two people with DSDs. Both resent the suggestion that they are 'trans', 'hermaphrodite' or 'intersex'. I appreciate that two people is not a representative sample, but neither of the people I know was aware of the issue until they wanted to have children, when investigations brought it to light. They are women with chromosomal abnormalities, not 'a third sex'.

Also, please don't talk to me as though I am a third-former. 'As I think you well know. . .' puts me in mind of a very condescending teacher speaking to a truculent teenager. I may disagree with you, but I do try to remain polite, even under provocation. You may think you know what I know, but in this case you were very wrong. For someone so keen on others being able to 'identify' how they choose, you are denying that right to people who are very much against that definition. Is there a word for that? Misdefining them? Deadsexing?

I'm sorry but f you ask question which you well know the answer to who exactly is being manipulative here?

Mollygo

Does using the problem that some women have with testosterone, justify the lying and cheating that men do to take part in female sport.
I’m sure I’ve seen this before

It's all about attempts to justify the (erroneous) premise that people can choose which sex they want to be. Any straw that can be clutched is grabbed to try to construct an opposition to the biological reality that sex change is impossible.

Yes, people can, may and should be able to live their lives as they choose. Yes, there are some men who would prefer to be women, and vice versa. Yes, some people want to opt out of so-called 'gender' altogether. That is all fine.

What is not fine is when people then insist that everyone plays along with their fantasies and pretends that they are the sex they want to be. It is not fine when male people demand access to spaces that were set up to be for women only. Why do they think these places exist? Why do they see themselves as somehow 'above' the rules that apply to everyone else?

It is not fine when categories for sport are disrupted by male bodybuilders competing against women. Or when research into sex-based differentials is disrupted because males identifying as women categorise themselves as such. Or when sex crimes are recorded as having been committed by women, despite the fact that a penis is used.

It is not fine when children are encouraged to believe that there is such a thing as 'the wrong body', and that anyone who enjoys anything traditionally and stereotypically associated with a gender should 'transition' to that gender, instead of just enjoying doing whatever it is. It is not fine for children to be given puberty blockers, or put on courses of 'treatment' that may lead to surgery or will require a lifetime of expensive drugs.

What is definitely not fine is when the language is corrupted so that it is increasingly difficult to even discuss men and women in a meaningful way. There are those who think that 'women' means 'anyone who says that is what they are', and others who use the term as it has been used for millennia, to mean 'someone born female who has grown into an adult'. That is why simple sentences such as 'Women's spaces will be protected' have become meaningless - a frightening development.

Pretending that accepting different definitions of sex, and using meaningless pronouns is 'inclusionary' is gaslighting, and it is also denying women our history, our commonality and our single-sex rights.

None of this is about sexuality, so comparisons to gay people are disingenuous or mistaken. It is about 'gender', which means different things to different people, and it is about power, which men gain from having access to all areas that women occupy, whether we like it or not.

Does using the problem that some women have with testosterone, justify the lying and cheating that men do to take part in female sport.
I’m sure I’ve seen this before

The people I know with a DSD detest the term intersex too. One discovered she had been born without ovaries when she had failed to start her periods by 16 years old. She is not some weird third sex she's as female as me, just lacks ovaries. If she'd been born with a limb missing or malformed in some way, we wouldn't classify her as something other than human.
Another I knew of was a classmate of my son, he was born with testicles absent. This was obviously discovered as a baby, and contingency plans for the use of hormones at the appropriate time were made. I don't know how he'd view being classed as intersex, we've had no contact since he was 10 years old and moved away.

DSD these days is more commonly defined as differences of sexual development, which is an accurate and respectful description.

Glorianny

Doodledog

What is the 'third possibility' you mention, Glorianny?

It is intersex as I think you well know Doodledog. Saying they don't want to be part of the trans discussion does not mean they just want to be forgotten. "Man is a man and woman is a woman simply denies their existence.
As it is estimated that 1-2 people in 100 are born intersex they should at least deserve a mention.
Rishi's concept means they must be one or the other, which in the past led to babies being operated on. I don't think anyone wants to see that happening.
www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex
Acknowledging they exist might help.

Not only have I acknowledged that 'they' exist, but I have pointed out that I know two people with DSDs. Both resent the suggestion that they are 'trans', 'hermaphrodite' or 'intersex'. I appreciate that two people is not a representative sample, but neither of the people I know was aware of the issue until they wanted to have children, when investigations brought it to light. They are women with chromosomal abnormalities, not 'a third sex'.

Also, please don't talk to me as though I am a third-former. 'As I think you well know. . .' puts me in mind of a very condescending teacher speaking to a truculent teenager. I may disagree with you, but I do try to remain polite, even under provocation. You may think you know what I know, but in this case you were very wrong. For someone so keen on others being able to 'identify' how they choose, you are denying that right to people who are very much against that definition. Is there a word for that? Misdefining them? Deadsexing?

Actually DSD is rejected by many intersex people. If you want up to date information this is the latest. The proposition that there are only two designations and sex is strictly a male/female concept is not accepted . interactadvocates.org/faq/#definition

And the word thse tends to be written 'those' nowadays

The term used nowadays is actually thse with a dsd so that article must be a little out of date. And again they are not a third sex.

Doodledog

What is the 'third possibility' you mention, Glorianny?

It is intersex as I think you well know Doodledog. Saying they don't want to be part of the trans discussion does not mean they just want to be forgotten. "Man is a man and woman is a woman simply denies their existence.
As it is estimated that 1-2 people in 100 are born intersex they should at least deserve a mention.
Rishi's concept means they must be one or the other, which in the past led to babies being operated on. I don't think anyone wants to see that happening.
www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex
Acknowledging they exist might help.

But am sure their offense is unimportant.

Unimportant to whom - Sunak!

The Tories are using this issue, there is no doubt about that, and it's quite complex because they were very much part of the women can have a penis nonsense until Johnson realised it was a vote loser. Penny Mordaunt for example was very keen on self ID at one stage.
However if politicians go around saying women can have a penis, or born in the wrong body, or dress like a woman, or the classic Isla Bryson is a rapist, then those are unbelievably regressive simplistic statements and there should be absolutely no surprise that there was a reaction to that.

What is the 'third possibility' you mention, Glorianny?

Men are men and women are women. Even dsd do not argue that there is a third sex, nor do they claim to be what they are not.

Galaxy

Many with dsds have been really clear that they do not want to be brought into to this debate, and that they are not some sort of third sex they are male or female. But am sure their offense is unimportant.

But saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman is surely bringing them into the debate anyway isn't it? It's limiting possibilities. If you refer to only two categories of anything and there is a third possibility you are by default denying the existence of that possibility. Which was I think a way of dealing with intersex people in the past, designating them either male or female and sometimes surgically altering them to make them conform. There were some terrible failures.

There are still some things operating in sport which negatively impact on anyone who doesn't fit completely into those narrow concepts. Women have died because of them and have been instructed to medicate themselves if they want to compete. It isn't really quite so simple is it?

Many with dsds have been really clear that they do not want to be brought into to this debate, and that they are not some sort of third sex they are male or female. But am sure their offense is unimportant.

You bringing people with a dsd nto the debate distresses many in that group yet you have done it.

It’s Sunak’s simplistic, headline-grabbing, reductive statement that is offensive to those people. In one fell swoop he dismissed their existence. At least the previous poster acknowledges that this is not a straightforward, binary issue.

You bringing people with a dsd nto the debate distresses many in that group yet you have done it.

Sunak's statement is not obvious. There are still people who are born with chromosomal defects who will be distressed by this statement, as well as other people who are questioning their gender identity.

I have the misfortune to have Rishi Sunak as my MP. Whilst I agree that he should be visible here, at the moment he is constantly in photos in the local paper. This is where a group or an individual has done a lot of charity work, or organised something to help the community in some way. He has not contributed one iota of effort but is always there to be in the photo when the work is done. Let him carry on as he is, losing the railway to this area, not sorting out the A1 etc etc. It will ensure that even those with very short memories will see why we need to get rid of the lot of them! I will make certain that the things I am involved in will not provide him with a photo shot!!

Rosie51

Of course this all comes from Stonewall's assertion that lesbian women and gay men should be "gender" attracted. Lesbians and Gays are homosexual........homo means the same....sexual obviously refers to sex.....so same sex attracted. Equally heterosexuals are.... hetero meaning other.... the other sex attracted. Bisexual is self explanatory, bi from the Latin meaning both, attracted to both sexes. How anyone can determine somebody's internal 'gender identification' is beyond me. Humans are good at determining the sex of those they meet, evolution has equipped us to read the smallest of clues.
I'd be more inclined to believe in 'gender attraction' if transwomen lesbians actively sought out, or were at least happy with, other transwomen lesbians.

I'm confused...

Why are TW lesbians not attracted to other TW lesbians - if they are... lesbians?

Are they then only attracted to natal-women lesbians?

... which is then men wanting to have sex with... women - isn't it?

What am I missing?