icowden
Legendary Member
So why not tell me what your point is, instead of making me guess? Is it the etymology of the words boy and girl?
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mudsticks
Squire
I was using it as an example of an event where women and non binary people have chosen to have a gender exclusive event, which could (in theory) be disrupted by someone being an @rs and claiming to be a woman or non binary, when they're not.
There are many answers to making these safer spaces less necessary in the first place, but they require a good deal more effort on behalf of a lot more 'good' men.
The appetite for doing that work, making those changes, seems a lot less keen than the appetite for bashing women who (for good reason) wish to exclude men some of the time
monkers
Legendary Member
Not sure a pocket dictionary cuts it against the WHO, the NHS etc etc. Trying to decide who is noticeably cis or trans in a changing room based on identifying a person's chromosomes or DNA is of no practical use.
If we are striving for safety, then the answer is clear to me, we enforce our existing laws more robustly. Whenever one person attacks another there should be appropriate response from local authorities, the police, the CPS, the courts, the prison service, and the probation service.
A weak link in that chain and the scales of justice are tilted in favour of the offender. Only a change of government can achieve that since we know where the failures lie, and it's not with trans women who just want to change / swim / change, or need a wee. Every other argument is bolted to the discrimination and demonisation of a class of people who have the same rights of dignity, privacy, presumed innocence, a fair trial, and justice as anyone else. This is how a social democracy ought to function, not culture wars which are by nature anti-democratic.
monkers
Legendary Member
It's about the value of words from their chronological usage. Andy wants to choose the definition of the word 'gender' from the 12thC and reject modern usage, but chooses to ignore the usage of the words 'boy' and 'girl' for a period up until about the 16thC.
You've just reasonably argued this ...
So you and I agree this, and disagree with Andy. Am I right?
AuroraSaab
Squire
And no, I'm not saying transwomen are predators. I'm saying they are men and no different from other men.
monkers
Legendary Member
What a farked up analogy. Owls are carnivorous, and so are men, therefore all men and trans women eat cis women. Strange.
AuroraSaab
Squire
As to language, there were only 2 sexes in mammals before human language was invented. There will be only 2 sexes long after humans, and their languages, have disappeared.
Not really. It illustrates those those who have no idea what women go through are utterly unable to empathise with why they might feel uneasy with men in their single sex spaces. And they happily give these spaces and services away, at no cost to them whatsoever. This thread is full of such men.
Not really. It illustrates those those who have no idea what women go through are utterly unable to empathise with why they might feel uneasy with men in their single sex spaces. And they happily give these spaces and services away, at no cost to them whatsoever. This thread is full of such men.
icowden
Legendary Member
A bit of yes and no. I think most people don't differentiate between sex and gender. Someone who works in NHS data definitely does - hence on NHS records people are recorded by Sex (legal definition) and also by Gender Identity . Where it gets muddy is that legal definition and not biological - at the moment that is handled by a flag for "sex as assigned at birth" or some such description. I'm in two minds about that. The reason being that if you are rushed into A&E as an emergency the doctor is not going to be interested in your gender identity they want to clearly know what your biological structure is.
So many people use gender when they mean sex and vice versa. As mentioned previously, I don't think it matters particularly. I would hope that most of the population just treat people as people.
icowden
Legendary Member
@monkers is going to take issue with that. There are always 3 sexes in that you have genetically variant mammals which can't easily be classified as male or female - which in animals tend to be one off variations that do not reproduce. But generally speaking there are two sexes and still are.
icowden
Legendary Member
Slightly unfair?
You know what @AuroraSaab is getting at. In the subset of male XY people we know there are traits of aggression and that some men will commit sexual assault and rape.
In a general sampling of transwomen with or without GRCs, it therefore stands to reason that those traits will be preserved, and that therefore there is an increased risk.
But... (and this is a big but).. there are actually quite a lot of caveats with that.
Firstly, it may not apply to transwomen who are undergoing hormone therapy as their hormonal balance is being shifted and the reduction in testosterone is likely (but I don't think proven yet) to reduce that possible risk.
Secondly, not all men are risks of course.
On the other end of the see-saw there is a risk that some men will claim to be members of this group precisely to carry out abuse.
The same of course is true of transmen but they start out with a reduced risk to begin with.
So when we are discussion transwomen perhaps we need some sort of mechanism to separate out people like your niece who are genuinely trans and trying to find their best way forward, want to be accommodated by the world etc from those people who have not passed that threshold. I suspect that these latter types are the sort or people who turn up at rallies with placards calling for women to be attacked or beheaded. I personally think that these are two very different camps within the trans community. I could be wrong, but that's certainly my perception at the moment.
AuroraSaab
Squire
0.2% of humans are born with a dsd. It would be remarkable if a tiny, tiny percentage of any animal species weren't born with variations in their reproductive organs. They are the exception that proves the rule. A variation rate of 0.02% (made up of lots of different disorders) doesn't equal a third sex, or even show sex is a spectrum.
monkers
Legendary Member
There was a time when we were unaware of chromosomes and DNA, so the chronological argument fails. There were two reproductive classes which makes us sexually dimorphic, but not all females can be mothers, and not all males can be fathers. We now understand that sex is not binary, and not wholly immutable because we how have the medical and surgical ability to change some of it.
You can't construct a cogent argument about the safety of women on the basis of chromosomes because while they are testable in a medical setting, they are not among us citizens carrying on with our daily lives. You can construct a cogent argument about public safety though but only in certain terms. Everybody has the right to the presumption of innocence, therefore the only remedy is deterrent by effective and efficient services. Unfortunately we have a government that prizes economy over effectiveness, so we change the government.
Pale Rider
Veteran
I can't argue with that, but plenty have and will continue to do so.
monkers
Legendary Member
Indeed I do, and this portrayal of men as predators is wrong-footed.
Are you so willing to give up your right to the presumption of innocence and just be guilty of being one man among many.
monkers
Legendary Member
I can.
