Women's rights under attack

Ok, let me see if I can give this the consideration it deserves:

I've stayed quiet on this so far because I don't really enjoy heated discussions, although I have been reading all of it. I can see valid points on both "sides", not that there should be sides.

If everyone really listens to what each other is saying instead of being defensive, I think there is a lot of common ground there. A lot of what people are arguing about is just language and technicalities. If you look at the fundamentals, everyone here just wants everyone to be allowed to be who they are and to be safe and happy. Empathy and listening openly would go a long way.

If we could start with the common ground and then co-create a society where everyone has the autonomy to be who they are and everyone has their rights and needs met, or at the very least listened to without being shouted down, it would be a huge step forward.

I couldn't agree more. Loath though I am to quote such a divisive figure as Jordan Petersen, I like his idea that you only get to argue against someone else's point of view after you have listened to their argument and understood it well enough to repeat it back to them in your own words. Even the effort of doing this can take some of the heat out of emotionally charged debate. I know a lot of posters have found some of my commentary harsh, however facts often seem harsh if you're on the wrong side of them. I'm all in favour of a society where people can present to the world as they please. The instances where women's spaces (I'll use that phrase to include sports, changing rooms, medical procedures where women would prefer not to have a man touching them intimately, rape crisis/domestic violence centres and all related circumstances) need to be protected are a small subset of life, but that doesn't lessen the importance of such protection.

I know the perception is that trans people are the minority and need to be protected, which I believe is true, but it's quite apparent that the main "side" being shouted down here and in the wider world is the women who are making very strong valid points that are in no way hateful or against trans people in general and then being accused of being bigots and in some cases, even having their own human rights violated.

Indeed. I've looked at both sides of this, and the only people I've seen receiving death threats, doxxing of themselves and their families, verbal and physical assaults, difficulties in the workplace for views expressed outside the workplace, have all been people speaking up for women's sex-based rights. I haven't found a single example of a trans person, ally or activist suffering any such opprobrium.

It is actually possible to simultaneously have respect and compassion for trans people, to accept them and allow them their right to live their own lives as they see fit, and to also be able to state that the true fact that trans women are not the same as biological women and that there are certain circumstances where it's important to separate the sexes by biological sex and not gender identity. I think it's horrific that in most situations it's not even safe for women to voice that and that's absolutely the biggest problem with the trans issue. We all need to be able to be safely heard.

Of course, two things can be true. Now that the pendulum has started to swing in the opposite direction, journalists will no doubt start to jump on the bandwagon. I wonder how long it will be before we here from any of those who were so cowardly in attacking those who spoke the biological truth, and in supporting those who were happy to shoot the messengers. Matt Cooper comes to mind, but there are many others.

It's very unusual for me to find myself disagreeing with some opinions labelled as being the "left" (I hate the whole left right terminology!) because I would have always considered myself to be extremely progressive and very much the opposite of what anyone would call the "right". I oppose all things that remove individual people's autonomy. I am autistic and part of the LGBTQ+ community. I have trans friends and have met other trans people. I strongly believe they have every right to live their lives in whatever way they like and to be treated as the gender they present themselves as to the world in the vast majority of situations. I have enormous compassion from them, as I do for all people and all living things. (After all, my spiritual belief is that we are all part of the one living thing which is nature / mother Earth.)

I certainly grew up with a very left wing political outlook, and I share your support for personal autonomy. However, I have found it very disturbing in recent years that so many on the "left" (I use the "" as I think there a bit of a horseshoe effect going on where the extremists on both sides are ending up very close together in some ways) have been so quick to curtail individual freedom. If you deviate from the whole bingo card of "progressive" opinions (they're not very progressive at all) then you are to be silenced and cast out. Examples would be someone like Thomas Sowell, who happens to be a black man with conservative opinions. Even worse, he has the intellectual heft to defend those opinions very robustly.

The reality is that the situation is complex and that biological women have rights too - rights that have taken centuries to acquire and are still not fully realised. As many have rightly pointed out, there are indeed much bigger threats to women's rights and safety in the world. I do think there is a divide and conquer situation at play and the fact is that women's rights are under attack from many different directions. But just because one threat is bigger, doesn't mean the smaller threats don't matter. And just because they appear small or don't affect that many Irish women, doesn't mean they don't matter. One doesn't negate the other and when threats are coming from all directions it's even more important to be aware of them, including how they are making people divide. Again, if we truly hear each other we can choose to not let it divide us.

The numbers involved may be small, but I think the issues are huge, in two ways. First of all, if one man is allowed into women's sports, a women's changing room, or a hospital cubicle containing a woman who has specifically requested a female doctor/nurse, then potentially any woman can be a victim of those circumstances. Secondly, there is the question of truth and gaslighting. If you as a woman are attending for a smear test, and the nurse who meets you is obviously male, but you are told they identify as female and that you are a bigot if you deny their femaleness, then that is a cause of moral injury to you. I would argue that that is a bad thing for all of society, not just women. I'd extend the argument to the question of medical treatment (drugs and/or surgery) where the WPATH files shows the subterfuge, deceit and outright lying with regard to the evidence base for affirmative care.

To clarify, I don't think in any way that trans women are a threat to women. I happily accept them as they are. I believe they should be immensely proud of who they are - trans women. I just wish that instead of undermining the experience of biological women by saying they are exactly the same as us, they could acknowledge that that is simply not true.

I fully agree - this links back to the topic of truth above.

Instead of the term "women" being applied to everyone who identifies as female and forcing biological women to use terms like "cis" women, or worse, "people who menstruate" or "people with uteruses", why can't biological women just be women and trans women be trans women (when the distinction needs to be made, which it doesn't need to in most cases)? After all, there is nothing wrong with being a trans woman and, as I mentioned, if that's what someone is they should be proud of that identity. Considering the enormous rage that is displayed when trans people are "misgendered" and how much they have fought for their rights to decide the language that's used for them (which I don't disagree with - that is their right), I find it hugely offensive to be told I have to describe myself differently. I am a woman and I shouldn't have to add "cis" to that or anything else - that is my right.

I like language and I admire people who can use it skillfully and elegantly, in spoken or written form. I understand that language evolves over time, hence "gay" is used very differently now to how it was used when I was born. But that was an organic, bottom up evolution. The language around trans seems different to me - it's like some Orwellian Rightspeak has been imposed from the top down, affecting institutions long before gaining widespread public acceptance. Consider the cervical check website, which for a time managed to remove the word woman entirely.

As someone who believes strongly in nature, I don't believe humans can control it as much as they think and my feeling on this applies to all other areas as well. Humans can do amazing things but we can't control nature. We overmedicalise and try to control far too much in life. It's amazing that trans people have access to medical facilities that can make them physically look like how they feel inside so that they can live their lives following their gender identity. I accept trans women as women socially and treat them as they wish to be treated as females, but to say that they are actually women just is not correct and actually undermines what it is to be a biological woman. I think these definitions need to be clarified because this is an example of where people can get caught up arguing about the fine points of language and terminology and therefore not manage to find common ground. If we can all be women and be treated like women in the vast majority of cases, and in the minority of situations when the distinction actually needs to be made, if women can be women and trans women can be trans women, I don't think that should be offensive to anyone.

There is a feeling among some groups that if you control the language, you control the debate. I think that's what is going on here in many cases.

I fully agree with your comments on what we can control and how we over-medicalise what are normal human emotional struggles. I've banged on about the latter in other threads - it is clear that the huge rise in prescribing has been accompanied by a huge rise in chronic mental health conditions. We can argue about which is the chicken and which is the egg.

As to the situations where I think sex does matter more than gender identity, I believe it is limited to a small number of situations but in these small number of situations it really does matter. In my opinion, that would be situations where women are confined, such as prison, situations where vulnerable women need services such as rape crisis centres or women's shelters and possibly some other specific situations where women must comply to things beyond their control, such as workplace changing facilties. And of course in the case of rape crisis centres, women's shelters and changing rooms, there should be facilities available to trans women as well.

I'm not talking about public toilets and the like because when we choose to use public spaces we share them with other members of the public and there is always going to be a risk with that, even if tiny. Apart from being impractical, forcing trans people to use public spaces like toilets that are opposite to their gender identity is unfair to them and I don't think it's necessary. Personally, I have no problem sharing a public toilet with trans women but I can see how someone who is a rape victim might and I would absolutely empathise with that. However, using a public toilet is a choice and not enforced, which is why I think it's very different to the prison situation, for example. It also doesn't leave any space for gender fluid or non binary people. Where are they supposed to go and who is to check? Really we need to all live and let live and stop pushing for even more bureaucracy and invasion of privacy in people's lives.

I also believe that even in the situations I've listed, there's no threat to women from genuine trans women but there is a very real threat from men pretending to be trans women. As ridiculous as it would be to police public spaces like toilets, it would be simple, fair to everyone and basic common sense to actually check someone's biological sex when it comes to the limited situations I've mentioned above. And in many of those, exceptions could be made when the trans woman has actually undergone surgery. But there is no way in the world anyone who has a penis should be allowed in women's prisons or working in female only rape crisis centres, for example. And for people who point that out to be called bigots is quite disturbing to me.

Those three paragraphs shouldn't be controversial at all, especially among people who claim to be motivated by kindness. If only being called a bigot was the worst thing that could happen those who speak the truth - see above or the Sex Matters website for a list of the sorts of punishments that have been meted out by the mobs.

Another area where sex matters is services and groups for people seeking sexual or romantic partners. If someone wants to only date biological women, that should be their right. If someone is happy to date either, that's their choice and there's no reason both types of groups can't exist for both cases. I mean, there are dating groups for people with other specific things in common that exclude members who don't share those features, such as religion or even race, so why is it so horrendous for biological sex to be used, especially considering that's a fundamental feature of what people are looking for? To exclude trans women from social groups, for example a book club or even something like a women's gym is wrong. But to not be able to exclude them from things like dating apps (for straight men or lesbians looking for women) is bizarre. If all dating groups excluded them, that would be a problem, but some are calling for an outright ban on anything that exludes them. I mean, I wouldn't be offended by being exluded from a group for black people seeking partners, for example.

The ongoing delightfully named Tickle vs Giggle case in Australia is an illustration of the above. I wonder about the motivations of someone who insists on trying to join a club where they clearly don't meet the eligibility requirements - I can understand it in sports where there are medals and $$$ to be won, though of course that doesn't excuse it.

I dislike competitive sports anyway and I have no interest in the area but I do believe things need to be fair for everyone. It especially matters in contact sports I think, when women may get hurt. But again, participating in sports is a choice. I don't have a strong opinion on this one but I do feel like the discussion of sports people with development differences is a complex and completely separate thing. I would prefer to live in a fully non competitive world where all sports were about participation and not winning medals but that's a different conversation.

I disagree vehemently here as I love competitive sports. I love that the latin origin of compete comes from "to strive together". If competition is fair and honest, I think all competitors are enriched by it, regardless of finishing position. I love stories such as those about the ultramarathon runner who's name I can't recall, who, having won the race, stood on the finish line wrapped in a blanket for hours so he could greet and congratulate every other athlete who finished, because without them in the race there would have been no race to win; or the guy in the cross country race who redirected a competitor who was in the act of taking a wrong turn, and lost out on first place himself as a result; or maybe most viscerally, those formula one drivers Arturo Merzario, Brett Lunger, Harald Ertl and Guy Edwards, deadly rivals of each other, and of championship leader Niki Lauda, who stopped to pull Lauda out of his burning car after his almost fatal crash at the Nurburgring.

That said I love the concept of parkrun - a timed run with no entry fee, prizes or medals.

The final area that I have concern with is when it comes to children. I believe everyone's rights are equal but children's rights trump everything. What child knows themselves well enough to make such life altering decisions? I'm still discovering who I am now at 45 and I don't think I was capable of making any kind of important decision at all l until I was at least mid 20s. I know everyone is different but I can confidently say that no child is actually in a position to know for certain that such an extreme decision is the right path for them and I don't believe parents should be allowed make that decision for them either.

Well, I'm 61 and I can say that for me at least the learning continues😀. I've been shocked to discover how willing adults are to sacrifice children's futures on the altar of an ideology which is not only false, but unlike religions is demonstrably so. The precautionary principle seems to go out the window in many cases. There's a huge medical scandal here - when the full extent of it inevitably becomes public it will be too late for those harmed, but hopefully it will prevent further suffering.

Having said all of that I'm sure it will come across to many people as "anti-trans" but I can assure you I absolutely don't feel any fear or dislike of trans people. If you can read what I've written with an open heart, you will know that. I really believe the more diversity in the world, the better and I passionately believe in every individual's right to autonomy in choosing how they live their lives, including their gender identity.

Dissenters are automatically branded "anti-trans". The "anti" is applied when you are not against anything, but are in favour of biological reality and it's implications.

The final point I want to make is that I've observed people being labelled and pushed into stereotyped boxes, grouping them with radical extremists and calling them nazis etc. I find it so saddening that the world has descended into this insanity where everything is so polarised. I also find it baffling that people accuse each other of being influenced by what they read on social media etc. when they are exemplifying that themselves. It's like the pot and the kettle.

The real irony is those doing the stereotyping would most likely be vehemently anti-Trump, yet this "with us or agin' us" stance is quintessentially US GOP and probably a huge contributor to the state of affairs over there ATM, which of course has repercussions for us here.

People are complex and can have complex and nuanced opinions on different topics. If we want to come to a solution that will work for everyone it will involve compromise. I would encourage everyone on either side of any debate to try a bit harder to truly listen to what each other is actually saying instead of jumping to conclusions and defensively pushing them into this box or that box. Just because someone says a trans woman is not the same as a biological woman doesn't mean they don't want trans people to exist. And to the trans people calling for allies, you should not need allies because there should be no enemy. Yes there are some truly transphobic people out there but they are an extremist minority and I haven't seen anything like that from anyone posting here.

That's really well put, I couldn't agree more.

If we really want to create a better world, we all need to tap into our female side. That includes all women and men. We need to start resolving conflicts and differences of opinion with compassion and open listening or there will be no world for any of us.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying here. The downsides of an excess of masculinity have been well rehearsed elswhere, but there seems to be a common misapprehension that women are above any of the shenanigans that abound in male dominated environments. Women are less physically violent, sure, but there are other forms of violence and some of them inflict harms that are a lot more damaging and take longer to recover from than a few slaps.

That's what I think it seems like.

What barbs? Aero2k is a perfectly balanced, genuine, well intentioned poster. Unfair thing to say.

What on earth are you on about?

Thanks, Though a cynic might say that just means I have a chip on each shoulder 😀.

I do try to look at all sides of an argument - in this case I'm persuaded by people like Emma Hilton and Colin Wright. The other side have a lot of faulty logic e.g. gender is a social construct - so why does anyone need medical treatment to align their body with their chosen identity? Why not socialise someone to accept themselves as they are?

Again with the broad brush smears. I am trying to lay out a factual basis on which it might be possible to build a consensus that everyone could live with, though nobody might be fully happy with it. That's the basis for a functioning society IMHO.

Not true. Questioning, disagreeing - please, bring it on. What I have made reference to is the group of men here not even taking on board the points we make explaining why we can't just disregard sex, and instead throwing sneers, and calling us anti trans - then scuttling off. Waterfaerie put it very well - there's nothing wrong with being trans, but disagreeing that transwomen ARE women is not unfair.

Ah stop @Mother Shaboobu will you? it's like a comedy show between ye 😋

Again Oisin, like your blatant misrepresentation further back where you stated we think men putting on dresses (a characterisation of transwomen that would be considered offensive) is women's biggest issue, you misrepresent me again today with the post I'm quoting, by telling me I take issue with men merely questioning a particular woman's comments on gender.

How are you comfortable with such dishonesty? It's a blatant lie. There is absolutely *nowhere* on this thread where I have taken issue with anyone merely questioning me. I have perfectly fairly taken issue with the spiteful barbs by a group of posters who won't discuss, they just throw out lies and insults.

Why not give an actual detailed response though instead of a mocking comment and smiley? Do you just condemn barbs when you don't agree with them? Do you not think that the post I'm quoting by you is a barb? Because it seems to be a standard you apply quite selectively.

How did I jump in to have a go? I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I haven't gone in here deciding I'll have a go at anyone. I did say Aero wasn't trying to get barbs in because they are a genuine poster, but it wasn't to have a go at anyone, so try to stop deciding there are ill intentions when there aren't.

"Comments" plural? One comment. No rewriting - just deleting text from one comment as it was deemed too personal.

This nonsense is all of course simply because I won't disregard biological reality.

Who said anything about that ?

C'mon , no need for this aggro . We don't agree on this subject . Let's move on ?