TW - expresses doubt about the existence of the non-binary gender

This is in continuation of the CJI's use of the phrase "pregnant person". Since I want to focus on a different aspect of this phrasing, I've started a new thread. He implied that women, trans men, and "others" can get pregnant, and it's the "others" I want to focus on here.

As a cis person, I must confess to not fully understanding the concept of being non-binary. While I am familiar with and understand what it means to be a trans man or a trans woman (and am wholeheartedly supportive), I am doubtful about whether non-binary is a real thing. I know very few non-binary people (5-7 in total, but I spend a LOT of time with them and am very close friends with them) and as far as I've seen, all of these people have severe mental health issues (anxiety, depression, etc.) and have experienced some kind of childhood/teenage trauma. The non-binary people I know (which is admittedly a very small sample size) are extremely angry with the world at large and express their anger in a variety of ways (usually directed at those near them - friends, family, etc.)

Venting paragraph ahead - This can get really exhausting. I am not responsible for non-binary friends' mental health issues, nor can I perpetually put up with their angry tantrums. I use the pronouns they want, I am as supportive as I can be, I have never expressed disbelief about their gender identity (although my conviction that it is made up for attention only grows with time and increased bad behaviour). When someone is constantly angry, they are exhausting to be around and reduce my respect for and ability to support certain groups of people. I have liberal views, and believe that freedom of speech is a key component of liberalism.

Since research backs up my claim that non-binary teens and people in their 20s have the worst mental health of all, there are a few possible explanations -

1. Their poor mental health causes them to be non-binary
2. The world's non-acceptance of them as non-binary and the constant judgment and ridicule they face causes their poor mental health

3. There is no causal relationship between the two, there is a correlation for other reasons.

If you are non-binary, can you weigh in on this? I understand that this post might come across as hostile and confrontational to non-binary people, but I request that we have a respectful conversation about this. Please let me know, thank you!

@LI - lot of censoring going on here, can you please publish the comments even if you're going to mark them as trollish? This is not law firm related (or even specific to anyone) so people aren't going to come at you with lawsuits. The only way to actually educate people and have all of us understand each other is to have open conversation. Cancelling them (or me) isn't going to help bring anyone into the fold

I also share your experience. Only met one non binary person and they were severely mentally ill. They used their non binary status as I stick to beat others with for being 'ignorant'. I remember they, a male at birth, never truly ever came out as non binary, only dropped hints. I never was able to pick up on these hints, and I was treated like a bigot for not being able to do so. I also received calls at 2 am from them proclaiming they were going to kill themselves often. ▮▮▮. Im sorry to say but I am also of the belief that being 'non binary' is more often than not a ploy for attention and a way to satisfy a need all humans have to be unique. Id be glad to be proven wrong.

▮▮▮. I know four people who call themselves non binary. ▮▮▮- I’ve really tried to talk to them to understand what’s going on with them and what non binary is. I want to be accommodating. ▮▮▮

The way they talk about it is - everyone has an internal sense of whether they’re a man or a woman- separated from their body they would still feel like a man or a woman. And non binary people don’t feel like a man or a woman - they feel like either or both or whatever . Now the problem is - I don’t think most people have an internal sense of whether they’re a man or a woman. I’m a woman - I’ve never thought oh here’s my woman brain doing the woman thing, or here’s my woman body doing the woman thing. I’ve always just thought- this is my brain and my body- it does what it does. I don’t need to act in any specific way to be a woman. I don’t need to wear pink or dance or sing or cook or put my career second or put men first or even play submissive to men to be a woman. It’s just what I am. I’m also dark skinned and 5’5. It’s just a descriptive category not a prescriptive one.

My non binary friends are mostly female- they have discomfort with their female bodies - they hate period pains and they’re afraid of childbirth trauma and every one of them has experienced sexual assault. That might make them want to disassociate from their body. Now I hate period pains and I don’t plan on having children and I’ve been through CSA- I just think - identifying my way out of womanhood will not help those problems. My dad sat me down when I was a kid and very kindly said “ no little girl - your body is not the problem”. The men were the problem.

They are also - most of them - either lesbian or bisexual and they think that makes them unwomanly. I’m straight - I don’t think lesbians are unwomanly.

I feel terrible even talking about it here because my friends don’t know I have these doubts - and they will leave me if they get to know. They have previously abandoned and cancelled friends for mistakenly using the wrong pronoun.

I think - if it helps someone therapeutically - I might use they/them pronouns and I might play along with it. But to claim that it’s true - that they really are not women and they really are some third gender - it’s really I think harmful. They’ve clearly had experiences only females have.

They have many mental illnesses too - bipolar, ptsd, borderline personality - you name it. I feel bad for them.

My male non binary friends are also mostly gay- there are a couple of straight guys. All have terrible mental illnesses. Maybe it’s just me - but these guys are sometimes problematic- like they’re not very nice to their partners, and they think they get a pass like gay guys get a pass to be catty to women. Mostly they’re uncomfortable being very masculine - and I think that’s okay- but they still are masculine in how they behave around the women they date.

I mean censorship around this issue is wild. It’s the new holy cow. I will try again.

Keep in mind I’m not sure exactly what I wrote on my phone at a v late hour. But I think it was - there’s really no proof at all that it’s a real thing or that social transition actually helps people with dysphoria. In many cases it might solidify a victimised identity instead of having - distress about one’s body be a passing thing. I really worry with some of my female friends that me calling them by they/it and other neo pronouns is further harming them. They just don’t seem to be getting happier even when everyone goes along.

I also think this is one of those things where nothing you do will be enough. It’s not enough if you say the pronouns - they really want to be seen as not belonging to their sex. I don’t think it’s possible for human beings to ignore material reality.

I think it’s fairly misogynistic to think that these people alone have discomfort with sexed bodies or sexed stereotypes. And it’s misogynistic to fight those stereotypes by carving an exception for these individuals as opposed to resisting the stereotypes for all women. When you say you shouldn’t be treated a certain way because “ I’m not a girl “- what you’re saying is that it’s okay to treat girls that way.

I think you should stop apologising for yourself or guilting yourself to go along. It took me a long long time. I read every non binary book I could find watched every tv show with non binary representation and I still could not tell you that it makes sense.

You should take your doubt and scepticism seriously - don’t be afraid to have a heretical thought.

Just because something is 'false' doesnt mean it should be censored ?? Plus, not expressing my opinion, but there exist many competing studies and opinions on whether their is scientific basis for non binary being a legitimate gender identity. Since when has moderation on legally india become about moderators imposing their view and removing anything they disagree with??

Opinions are fine but not when they veer close to hate speech. Try replacing the category in question with 'gay', 'women', 'mental illness', 'Hindus', etc in your sentences.

Yes, there are debates to be had but do not have those debates while completely denying the lived and documented reality of many in such absolute terms, and accept that your anecdotal experience may not be the totality of what's out the there either.

In short, try to be kind. That's not about freedom of speech, it's about fostering genuine debate and making LI a more pleasant place.

There’s no medical evidence. When I say it doesn’t exist - I mean I have doubt and disbelief about the category existing- not about the existence of people claiming this identity.

When you say there’s medical evidence - you mean there are people who have told their doctors or scientists they are non binary. You

Don’t mean there’s any sort of test that they’ve taken that proves they have non binary brains while the rest of us have binary brains.

There is evidence of the accounts of people. Do you disbelieve someone who is gay, for instance, until you get a brain scan that proves they are gay?

Agree this is a complex issue, but so is the mind and so are humans. There may be debate to be had about how the medical establishment and society should deal with this on a policy level, but if you start by denying the reality of the experience of all trans people, this is not a bona fide basis to the discussion.

Please keep on topic and on good faith.

Exactly- evidence of people telling a doctor or a scientist that they are non binary- there is nothing verifiable about that all. I could go around telling people im non binary- that doesnt make it so.

gay is about verifiable external behavior- they have sex with people of the same sex. Homosexuality is a real thing that we've found in every mammal. Nonbinary is purely an internal state of mind- a thing we havent found in other mammals. There is no way to verify. Gender identity is a very different kind of claim than sexuality. It worries me that you feel safe censoring people when you dont understand the basics of what kinds of claims are being made.

If someone claimed to me that they were gay but they continued to only be in heterosexual relationships- yes I would dispute if it was a reality based claim. I have a friend who claims to be bisexual but only ever dates men- she never dates women at all. I should have the ability to question why that is and whether she finds other women attractive even or if shes just claiming that identity for political clout.

No one is obligated to accept as gospel truth everything a trans person might say. To argue that they should because that is "kind" is essentially threatening social sanction for compliance.

Hindu- any religion- is about a belief system. Literally not scientifically provable. I can discuss how unbelievable I find the existence of flying monkeys or dudes who can turn water into wine or winged horses to be because we have free speech and we recognise that its okay for people to not subscribe to this belief system. If nonbinary people wanted to claim they were also a belief system- a religion- which i think is actually right- I wouldnt have any obligation to affirm their beliefs. I dont have any obligation to chant "allah hu Akbar" or "Jai Shri Ram' or " christ is king".

Many people on the internet claim they have multiple personalities and many people claim they have tourettes and many people claim they are a different race and many people claim they are a different age. It is not a necessary condition for a bona fide discussion to take their claims at face value. I am arguing in good faith- I actually have thought about it a long long time and cannot make sense of it. I
It is not in bad faith to argue that whatever experience one might be having - it might not actually be real. Leave trans aside- anorexics really really feel like they are fat. So much so that they starve themselves to death. By your logic- denying "the reality of their experience" - or doubting their beliefs would be unacceptable. How is trans/ nonbinary different?

If we are seeing that so many of these people claiming non binary identities are suffering from severe mental illnesses that in all other respects alter their perceptions of reality- I dont see why gender identity is sacrosanct.

Clearly people disagree with you. And if youre gonna keep censoring based on your belief system - and not on what is sayable within the parameters of free speech- you shouldnt be a moderator.

Your last paragraph is not an example of bona fide, and most of your arguments are straw men, so would argue as moderator that this thread has run its course and you're trolling now.

Just like homosexuality, fluid genders, transgenderism and transexualism exists in animals too: https://daily.jstor.org/transgender-proclivities-in-animals/

And if homosexuality can be proven by external behaviour, so can any other 'queer' external expression, whether that goes to surgery or lifestyle or your fashion or haircuts.

Anorexia might be tempting to compare and might seem to share some similarities on its face, but for one, it literally kills people. But someone getting liposuction or other plastic surgery because they might erroneously feel they're fat or want to be a supermodel does not attract society's judgment or your opprobrium? So why would any surgery or such beliefs that have to do with gender or genitals?

Finally, yes, social sanction already exists for not being kind, so most people try not to be dicks to each other. So please be kind and don't rail about moderation or categorically deny the existence of trans as a 'thing', which sounds like a dog whistle and something that is potentially unkind and cruel to people you might not know. You can do better if you want to genuinely engage on the issues and have genuine questions, rather than wanting to prove only your opinion is valid.

pointing out logical inconsistencies in your arguments does not a strawman make. If you want to argue a strawman- you have to prove that there is a more refined argument that one is missing. You cannot do that.

Please show me the mammal that goes to the vet to get a sex change operation or the animal that cares about pronouns. I would be happy to change my mind. You would not be happy with the lack of evidence you find.

Are sex and gender roles not as strongly linked as some would argue? yes. Obviously. There are women who like work and are ambitious and cutthroat and there are men who want to take care of babies and old people. Where we disagree is that that makes them less of a woman or less of a man. You seem to be arguing that it does- explain to me why you are so wedded to gender ?

sorry- so i understand- a short haircut and fashion choices and surgeries to you- mean that one is not the sex one is? so butch lesbians are not women to you? flamboyant gay men are not men for you? you sure youre being kind or woke or progressive with that stance? Sure youre not homophobic there? I would think- whatever fashion choices one might make- even surgeries- one remains the sex one is born as. If i go get a haircut and only wear sweats and hoodies that would make me a man? or non binary? because theres something inherent in women that draws them to high heels and spinny skirts? a gendered soul? does the same thing draw women to babies and home making? should all women who want to pursue careers have to transition to men or non binary then?

I absolutely think body modification including liposuctions are awful and harmful and people shouldnt do them. Why would you imagine different? I also think people clearly die and experience great distress because of things like non-binary nullification surgeries and sex change surgeries. Please read the damn cass review, read the studies out of netherlands, read articles in the AUA journal that indicate that trasitioning increases suicidality. Read Andrea Long Chu in the new yorker who said he didnt feel suicidal until he started transitioning. Please go watch Jazz Jennings and go watch scott newgent talk. I want to live in a world where no one has to feel like they have to get these disastrous cosmetic interventions to fit in. You want to live in a world where there are no tomboys and no feminine men cause they would all transition by getting surgeries and exogenous hormones.

Read the damn cass review- they were sterilising gay and autistic kids because of gender expression- what a regressive awful thing to do - literally conversion therapy- because you had to believe in gendered souls.

Social sanction exists - very often- in religious movements- for disbelief and skepticism. "not being kind" is your version of "keep sweet and obey". If I dont agree with you you feel free to censor me instead of revising and making your arguments better or even genuinely trying to understand why anyone might disagree. You are the authoritarian.

No one here is being unkind of cruel to people they dont know- except- I would argue- people who perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes like you do.

I am actually listening and responding- youre the one censoring people because theyre saying things you dont like.

Nothing significant has been censored here beyond trying to stop this thread veering into transphobia by implying trans people are mentally ill, please do not imply otherwise.

But you've said what you need to and while you and others on both sides have made a few thought provoking points, and there are serious issues surround open discourse and debate around how society and policy and the medical profession should deal with it, this thread kinda proves why it's so hard: it often seems to come down to us vs them, from both camps, and anger.

Are there no commonalities between both camps, if we ignore the more extreme fringes of both, and can agree on mutual respect, acceptance and kindness? It might not solve all the issues but that does leave a lot of space in between.

You be kind. You stop censoring and threatening to censor and calling disagreement hate speech and allowing comments that harken back to "women are hysterical". You be respectful. You stop assuming that anyone who disagrees- they must hate all people who identify as trans- they must hate all gay people- they must just be bigots- people who disagree with you must be bigoted or ignorant. Do you know how exhausting it is to hear that misogynistic stuff over and over? do you know how awful it is to constantly be told to educate yourself when youre the one providing thoughtful responses and links to studies and analysis? as if women who disagree with ideology have to be so stupid they cannot understand high falutin theory. we understand- we disagree. Once you approach the topic with some degree of curiosity and open mindedness and intellectual humility- you can then start censoring other people for not doing so.

Only one side here has argued that their opponents are all irrational because they have periods. Only one side as argued that there should be discrimination in education and employment. No wonder women want to escape this rank misogyny. Maybe youd treat us more like equals if we all identified as non-binary- i doubt it though.

alright- so going by your logic- if a non binary identified female did not get a hair cut or wear mens clothes with regularity- it would be okay to suspect that shes making it up for attention? All non binary people should have to prove their non-binary ness right?

If a trans person didnt get surgeries - we should not accept them as trans? are you a truscum or a transmedicalist? you said that the proof of these identities is in behaviour- what if the behaviour is absent?

Clearly you didnt make that argument in good faith. You and I both know these are not claims about anything social or behavioural- these are claims that are individual and psychological. How is it then not fair to ask if the chicken or the egg came first? did the slew of mental illnesses come first and then the dysphoria? or did the dysphoria come first? is it in fact- a real genuine identity claim to be taken at face value? or could it be something that is not that?

You're right, this is not going anywhere and getting ridiculous... Was trying to rebut your claim that only things that could be externally seen are 'real', which taking your argument similarly would mean homosexuality is imagined unless it's expressed in some behaviour by someone.

The claims you make regarding mental illness are clearly not something that can be adequately discussed here, if your basic argument is that being trans is always a mental illness or caused by mental illness.

We can't answer here what OPs friends are going through, nor can we generalise that all trans people are like OPs friends, or that OPs account is even a fair one. So let's park this discussion, it seems to have run it's course and you've had your say and is unfortunately not constructive anymore.

Like I said- I would disbelieve that someone was homosexual if they only entered heterosexual relationships. Behaviour matters for behavioural classification. Gender identity is not making claims about behavior- its making claims about internal states of mind.

That said- Yeah. You can leave the discussion. Think about it some more- theres no shame in being wrong or in changing your mind.

They are telling you that it doesn't fit them. Why would you disbelieve them? Who do you think decided that there should be only two genders. When you accepted that as real, did you consider that for many years it was considered real that men are naturally superior to women and some people still believe that. Did you consider that many people similarly though that gay people were imagining it and could be cured back to normality?

They don't need to prove anything to you. You need to educate yourself.

its not about should. Its not about what ought to be. I dont think we change the world by deciding to ignore the material reality. Men are physically superior to women. Thats just true. on average they have bigger bones, more muscle size, larger lungs, larger hearts, all of that makes a difference. I didnt decide it should be so- i realised I cannot change reality by pretending.

I think when we ignore material realities like sex in the real world- in favor of these fanciful unprovable gender souls idea- then you have disastrous circumstances. you have the erasure of womens rights and the breaking of womens solidarity. you have protections for women erased from the law. That actually causes actual violence.

I absolutely have educated myself. I have spent years now reading about this stuff. I am sorry but the condescension is exhausting- you dont think someone could disagree with you because they might know something you dont? How smug and self assured and close minded is that. Do you think I wanted to be dissenting to something like this? do you think i like being disagreeable?

Have you educated yourself? have you read the Cass review? or Helen Joyces book? or Kathleen Stocks book? Have you educated yourself?

im sure there are several women who could beat up several men. That doesnt change the averages or that most crimes are committed by men. that doesnt change male pattern violence or male pattern criminality. It doesnt change that on AVERAGE men are stronger than women. Google it man. this is basic stuff.

Do you believe everyone when they make claims about themselves? there are grown men who claim they are really 12 years old on the inside- should we let them go play with 12 year olds? there are brahmins that claim they are the most oppressed caste in india? shall we give them exclusive reservations? what about men who claim theyre oppressed because women wont sleep with them? should we force women to sleep with them? rachel dolezal really really thinks shes black on the inside and elizabeth warren really really thinks shes native american- do you believe them?

You dont accept any of these claims unquestioningly- theyre all about oppression- why do you accept claims about gender unquestioningly?

I dont accept that there are any genders. I dont want any genders- my utopia is a world where anyone can dress speak and behave any way they want without fear. But that dress, speech and behaviour wouldnt change material realities about sexed bodies. And females are on average weaker than males. Males have shown male pattern criminality. thats true regardless of self image. thats all im saying.

Do you realise that where this trans movement leads is for kids who might be gay - who will inevitably during puberty feel like they might be better off being the opposite sex and being heterosexual- will be encouraged to transition? Did you listen to susie green the CEO of mermaids who was so upset at having a gay son she decided he was in the wrong body and got him surgeries and hormones when he was a minor? Please read Hannah Barnes' time to think and the Cass review. Read the Shellenberger leaks of the gender identity services in england- the nurses and doctors are joking about how there wont be gay kids left in a few years because theyre all transitioning now. Do you think its a good think its okay for lesbians to only like other females? that would be transphobic. Because sex doesnt matter- only internal gender feelings do according to this doctrine. Look it up- theres a riley j denis video from early trans activist years claiming just that- they have a word for it- its the cotton ceiling- cause of womens underwear. Do you think its a coincidence that lgbt organisations are now calling lesbians "non-men" who love other "non-men"? Because same sex attraction is transphobic now. Isnt that homophobic? Look this stuff up if you like. More gay men and lesbians are on the gender critical side than you even think. Old school lesbians like Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Katie Herzog, old school gay men like Fred Sargent- people who started the stonewall riots- theyre all critical of this stuff. Do you think theyre all just bigoted?

Look up the giggle v tickle case. Apparently lesbians cannot have a dating app all to themselves without excluding male bodied people anymore- that would be transphobic. Youre not on the right side of history.

You need to educate yourself.

These are valid questions to ask. The problem is that usually those questions are asked without also acknowledging that many more cases exist that aren't as fringe or problematic where having strong trans support systems actually saves lives and prevents mental illness.

At some point this becomes a contest of which side causes or suffers more harm, and most societies seem to be struggling to cope with formulating compromises.

And the more extreme fringes of neither side seem to accept those concerns, and public debate then often becomes hostile, as this thread too seems to have become.

its not about which side suffers more harm. its not pain olympics. Its clear to me that kids who are identifying their way out of sex is suffering harm. Its evident to me that whats been happening with youth gender medicine is an unbelievable medical tragedy and a scandal. I completely believe that trans people suffer harm.

Even OP- shes not saying her friends are well and theyre doing it for kicks. She wrote this because shes concerned that their mental health is so far gone they are hanging on to this idea and antagonising all their friends and family. Shes unhappy she isnt able to support her friends the way they want and that she actually cannot in her own head figure out what the best way to help her friends is.

Its about thinking through whether evidence blind ideological positions based on esoteric academic philosophy - and cancelling dissidents- can actually be the basis for discussion in the material real world. If you make things unsayable because you think it appears bigoted- youre not actually interested in solving the problem- youre interested in being seen as wonderful and "on the right side of history".

OP says they want to understand but instead of looking up the question and reading it, writes this post that undermines non-binary people suggesting they have mental health problems! You can't start a respectful conversation after calling your interlocutor potentially crazy.
If you are truly interested in understanding, please read Judith Butler. You can start here https://www.jstor.org/stable/3207893?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=3

Bear in mind that women and gay people were all called crazy and attention-seeking when they questioned being treated as sub human or abnormal. Your second explanation is the one that fits. It may be tiring to understand and adapt but it is even more tiring to live among people don't recognise your personhood.

OP here
Hi there, I'm not saying it's tiring to "adapt", I'm saying it's tiring to be an emotional punching bag. Can you address the anger I've talked about? I get that hurt people hurt other people, but I'm done. Did you see the comment someone else has made on this thread about non-binary people being exceptionally suicidal? Have you had to deal with this yourself? The first few times, anyone with a shred of humanity will treat it as an emergency. But what after that? When this has happened 10 times, I cannot do anything that will actually make a difference. I can recommend that they visit a psychiatrist and a therapist, but as a student with a busy life I can't perpetually play therapist to these damaged individuals. I have neither the time nor the emotional bandwidth. Let's be realistic, we don't have the mental health infrastructure in India to do anything about it. This is not a rhetorical question, what am I supposed to do?

I am not saying that it is difficult to use the correct pronouns. I've done that (fearfully, because these explosive people are going to come at me if I make a mistake. I haven't even accidentally used the wrong pronouns, because I'm very careful, but god forbid someone else does because my day is also going to be ruined). I am saying it is difficult to constantly make accommodations for non-binary people at the cost of my own sanity. When I say accommodations, I mean constantly making excuses for their bad behaviour because "Oh they have it so bad". I'm sure they have it bad, but that's no excuse for shitty behaviour.

While we're being completely honest on this thread, can we talk about how all the non-binary people come from privilege? I've never met a non-binary person who isn't well off. What's up with that?

Lastly, I want to say that being liberal inherently requires being open to new thoughts and ideas, and to thoughts and ideas that are different from your own. When I make these comments about non-binary people, it comes from having dealing with them and being tired of constantly playing therapist. I didn't sign up for that, and I don't know how to opt out. Before being thrust into such a role, I would have also been vehement in my support for non-binary people. I would have said, "What's it to you that they have different pronouns and life experiences? They don't have to prove to you that their existence is valid." Now, because I am forced to deal with a lot of crap that I don't want to deal with, I have these questions. Instead of scolding me for having a thought that does not fit into what you deem politically correct, it would be great if you could actually engage with what I've said. Thanks!

I'm not saying what you're going through isn't difficult. The problem with your thinking is that you are attributing behaviours you don't like to one characteristic of the individual, that they are non binary, and then you are suggested that all non binary people are like this.

Firstly, all the non binary people I know are extremely kind and gracious about mis gendering slip ups. They are not about people who persistently and deliberately misgender them after being corrected but that is understandable.

Secondly, your people are probably reacting to their environment. Everything you are saying now was said 20 years ago about gay and lesbian people. Being bullied and having to erase essential parts of who they are got to them. It was not their fault. Anyone would react to being treated that way. It is your institution's fault for not creating a better environment for them. It is also your institution's fault for not extending support to them as they struggle.

If you are too depleted to help, you can compassionately express your need for time and space. Letting resentment build and then engaging in what is effectively hate speech against a whole group isn't good for you and it definitely isn't good for the person you refer to.

And finally, no they don't all come from privilege. The ones who don't just suffer in silence because intersectionality makes everything worse. You probably have no idea who they are and may be saying these very hurtful, dehumanizing things to them.

youve got it backwards. She isnt saying "all non binary people are like this" Shes saying- are they identifying as non binary because they have this whole host of other mental illnesses?

What is hateful about this speech? that you hate it? No one here has called for harming anyone? or for thinking of anyone as less human- there is simply a question of whether these identity claims are to be seen as credible and genuine or as pleas for attention from mentally ill people- whether we should take these claims at face value and shut up about it or whether we should be skeptical.

You want to know why theyre all privileged? do you know what luxury beliefs are? read rob henderson.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/02/20/troubled-rob-henderson-luxury-beliefs-review/

Your (probably valid) desire not to bear their emotional load all the time does not negate their experience. They may have serious mental problems resulting from dysphoria or the world's reaction to it or coincidentally. But then what? Does that confluence mean that they are simply attention seeking and that they should "get over" their gender identity? Some people have near incurable depression (or even physical illnesses) and their friends and family and caregivers may feel a tremendous emotional burden as a result. Should they simply "cheer up" or "get better"? I think that you are mixing up cause and effect.

do we tell depressed people people that yes- things are exactly as they perceive and everything is horrible and yes they should consider self harm? or do we find ways to help them so that they no longer feel depressed? do we do cognitive behavioural therapy and medication to manage the illness?

You want everyone to affirm non-binary beliefs because you think that leads to a better world. People disagree- sometimes validating claims about internal states of mind is not the best thing you can do.

Everyone here is recognising peoples personhood. What we’re having legitimate doubts about is whether claims about not being either sex or gender are real. We’re having doubts about the category these people claim they are. Not that they are people. To conflate those two is kind of awful and manipulative.

When women are denied personhood they are raped and forced to become baby making machines. Whatever mis-gendering is - it’s not that.

I read butler - it doesn’t make sense still. Will you answer questions then ? About the butler article ?

Pretending you are being attacked when your bigotry is questioned is what is awful and manipulative. The whole idea of two genders is a Christian invention. It doesn’t cover everyone. They are not ‘claiming’ , they just are. And to tell them what they are doesn’t exist is denying their humanity. If butler was too much, google it. Many people have discussed their work in more accessible ways.

two genders is not a christian invention. That is blindingly ahistorical. Every language in the world has words for male and female. most languages in the world have gendered words even for objects. In hindi we have gendered language for tea, coffee, bus, train, cats and dogs and basically nearly everything. did all of them start after the 1600s when the british colonizing started?

They say they are non-binary- and the only way to know they are nonbinary is because they say they are- that seems like an identity claim to me. You want people to unquestioningly accept these claims. Playing word games wont change whats actually happening.

Butler isnt too much- you want to go? shall I begin to ask questions? Just give me the green light. its not that i didnt understand- I disagreed. Which is a thing we get to do in free societies.

No one is claiming alok vaid menon doesnt exist. or that he isnt human. People are disputing the claim that he isnt a man because he says so.

I can't engage with someone who has the hubris to say they disagree with Butler without any reasoned explanation for why. Yup, everyone is entitled to stick to their guns regardless of what better minds try to teach them. And everyone else is entitled to leave them to it without wasting more time. Also freedom. You're not looking for a conversation, you're looking for a fight.

'Word games' is a very old ad hominem attack tactic of the ignorant. I would recommend updation but I suspect repeating tired old tropes is your thing.

I can tell you exactly why I disagree with Butler very clearly. Because she thinks gender is all performance and liberation lies in subverting that performance. I disagree. Gender is not all performance. Gender sometimes reflects very material sex based realities. When one half of humanity is physically weaker, when one half of humanity gets pregnant and has periods and has physically weaker bodies- and is socially punished for having different bodies- sex roles and stereotypes attach to that which is harmful. But I dont believe liberation exists in pretending that that the materiality of being female doesnt exist and encouraging people to parody sex stereotypes of the opposite sex. I think liberation exists in recognising material realities and in working to ensure that we create a liberated world despite those material realities.

I think butler exemplifies white first world feminism where stereotypes are the most awful thing to happen to someone- when in the real world- there is real violence, material bodies are destroyed because of sex.

Butlers famous example for why its all performance is marriage- She argues that marriages only exist because of the performance of it, a priest and a ceremony. Except thats not true even of marriage. My parents have been together all my life and not had a ceremony or a priest. The lack of a performance doesnt invalidate that they have raised children together or that they have loved each other and lived with each other most of their lives. they are married without any performance.

Sex is a similar thing. I was female before any doctor called me female. I was female at conception. we have female foeticide in this country because of that material reality. Its only in the absence of material reality that the performance is even necessary. Its only when a union is not already present that you need priests and big ceremonies to signify a marriage. And i would still be an adult human female even if i didnt do a single thing that is stereotypically feminine. And a man would be a man even if he wore dresses and got cosmetic surgery. The world unfortunately exists even if we really really wish it didnt and played games of pretend. Material reality exists.

Butler thinks we attain utopia by pretending that the link between sex and sex stereotypes didnt exist and indeed if we subverted them. I reject that wholesale. That way does not lie any liberation. Liberation lies in recognising the difference between the sexes and making material accomodations based on that material reality. A single mother of two in the ghetto doesnt get any sort of relief by claiming shes non-binary. Thats why you dont see many poor people buying into this nonsense. She gets relief by the state recognising that because of her sex, and because of our sexist society- she needs accommodations- she needs childcare, she needs assistance, she needs a community that will support her. Recognising material reality is important if you want to make change in the material world.

Girls who have been abused and exploited do not need to be told that they need to reframe their trauma. We need to make sure that they arent re-traumatised by our esoteric academic beliefs.

To put it into academese- I disagree with altusserian social constructivism entirely. Im a marxist- and Marx of all people understood why material realities are important.

Here are links where perfectly well known feminists have said more or less the same thing.

Here is Martha Nussbaum disagreeing with butler: https://newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody
Here is Jane Clare Jones making many of the same points: https://janeclarejones.com/2019/01/24/judith-butler-how-to-disappear-patriarchy-in-three-easy-steps/
Here is Kathleen Stock in Material Girls: https://feps-europe.eu/inspiration/why-reality-should-matter-for-the-left/
Here is Germaine Greer talking about why sex changes are lies because of material reality: https://twitter.com/terfcitations/status/1550465693073567744?lang=en
Here is Holly Lawford Smith writing a whole entire book about whats wrong with transgender philosophy and why Butlers arguments dont hold up: https://philpapers.org/rec/LAWSME-2

Here is Gloria Steinem on transexualism before she got shamed by the mob: https://twitter.com/DonovanCleckley/status/1609842415409438721

Its not even just these feminists- chimamanda adichie, andrea dworkin, catherine mackinnon have all said things critical of this ideology and of butler. But they get bullied and coopted by this new religious movement intent on protecting their pope.

I have read and taught Judy. Have you honestly read any of this literature? Have you even critically read it?

Word games is not ad-hominem. Its pointing out that social construction only goes so far and that material realities matter. Youd know that if you even bothered to find out why people disagree.

you as an individual are so freaking smug and condescending i dont think theres any speaking to you. You dont want to know why people disagree- you have assumed they are all ignorant bigots because they dont read the same way and think the same way as you do. Once you get over your self righteousness- then maybe we can have a conversation.

PS: Mods- sorry about earlier incomplete post- cat stepped all over keyboard.

"If the implicit point is that someone who has a penis, or even someone who once had one, will rape, because the penis is the cause of rape, or the socialization of those who have penises is the cause of rape, then surely such claims should be debated. Rape is an act of social and sexual domination, as many feminists have argued, arisen from social relations that establish masculine domination and access to women’s bodies without consent as a right and a privilege.”

This is what Judith butler says in her latest book. Maybe you havent read it?

So shes essentially saying "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Its not the penis that is causing rape- sure maybe some rape victims are penetrated by other methods. Its not the socialisation of people who are bepenised that causes rape? so not all men then?. Heres a hint: We know not everyone with a penis is a rapist Judy. We just also know that people with penises are the vast majority of rapists and therefore we do extra things- like sex-segregated spaces- to protect women and girls from rape. Since- yknow- rapists arent going to tell you theyre one of the baddies. Its called safeguarding. Its like having background checks for guns or not letting members of terrorist organisations buy guns.

oh so its social and sexual domination is it? how is this domination achieved ? certainly brahmin men want to achieve domination over dalit men- do they rape the dalit men then? im sure putins soldiers want to dominate ukranians- did they rape the male soldiers? has any war existed where the rape victims were predominantly male? Oh wait- the victims are always female? its dalit women and women in conflict zones that are raped by men? 98% of rape is done by males to females?

Its just masculine domination? so why arent butch lesbians going around raping people in huge numbers? theyre masculine arent they? why are men in dresses raping women- you can go to reduxx and look at all the stories? surely someone rejecting masculinity and attempting femininity wouldnt do that? what is the cotton ceiling about if its not compulsory heterosexuality with new clothes on? If JBs model of masculine domination is to hold- there can never be a single non-binary or transwoman who has ever assaulted or raped a female. Isla Bryson then either shouldnt exist or be a charlatan? and if he is a charlatan- then we must accept that self declaration is not a test of gender identity - you would have to become a transmedicalist.

Thats what JB gets wrong. She gets wrong that womens bodies are female before any socialisation or any kind of social construction can take place. Bodies are not made and unmade by discourse. Thats a stupid idea. If a tree falls in the woods and no ones there- that tree has still fallen. We seem perfectly content to recognise this line of constructivism in every other area of life. Just because you can see snow in some parts of the world doesnt mean that we dont have a climate change problem. Just because our bellies are full doesnt mean there arent starving people. Just because we dont see the pain that an animal goes through in the slaughterhouse doesnt mean it doesnt experience pain. Besides- lacking alll socialisation- even if we agree baby boys are bounced and baby girls are coddled and socialisation starts young. Especially in our country- the oppression begins well before any of that social construction of gender can kick in. Do you know what female feticide is? do you think theyre killing those babies because of some gender identity the fetus has not managed to express yet? or because its female?

Even butler knows this- because she doesnt say women and non binary and feminine bodies- she says womens bodies. The world is not turtles all the way down- its not social construction until nothing is left. Gender- gender roles and behavior and stereotypes are indeed socially constructed- but sex- most definitely is not. Sex exists regardless of whether or not we recognise it. And refusing to recognise it so that we can all be revolutionaries is misguided at best and misogynistic at worst.

Lets look at the article you cite. I dont have the time or patience to go point by point and debunk her nonsense - but I can at least attack some of her foundational assumptions. First sentence and Butler has gotten it wrong. Simone de Beauvoir As an existentialist, she believes that we should all be free to determine our fate and she analyses the ways in which women’s fate is confined by patriarchy, othering and femininity. So she says “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”.

This quote has been misused by many, but especially and firstly Judith Butler and then third wave feminism, to justify that being a woman is just an identity or a feeling, and even that Beauvoir is pro trans. But the existentialist maxim is ‘existence precedes essence’ so the material reality of ‘woman’ precedes any essence/nature/feminity for Beauvoir. Here is a quote from what Beauvoir says explicitly about transvestites. "“One does not acquire virile attributes by rejecting female [feminine] attributes; even a transvestite doesn’t manage to turn herself into a man—she remains a transvestite.” Much of this confusion is because of mistranslation by Parshley- a dude. Clearly Beauvoir is not arguing that gender is a performance.

So yeah- not a great start for judy- clearly her claims about gender not being a stable identity but all about performance is something that she cannot attribute to beauvoir at all. Lets go on.

Heres another quote "I will understand constituting acts not only as constituting the identity of the actor, but as constituting that identity as a compelling illusion, an object of belief" Right there- because JB writes so badly maybe you dont realise what shes even said in this piece written at the beginning of her career- she doesnt think any performances or acts constitute the identity of the actor- she thinks the identity is just a compelling illusion- a belief. Its social constructivism all the way down. Thats what im saying too- Behaving in gender-non conforming ways doesnt make you the opposite sex- or the neither or both sexes- thats creation of "identity" is an illusion- a belief- absolutely nobody is required to go along with your beliefs and illusions in a free society or one committed to the truth.

But lets go on- the sex gender distinction is spicy. First- she quotes merleau ponty about the body being a "sexual being" and again misquotes de beauvoir to argue its performance. But of course Merleau ponty is misquoted as well. Sexuality is different than sex- just as homosexuality, hetereosexuality is different from male and female. The first two are behavioural characteristics. I can be more or less sexual one day- that doesnt actually change my sex- which is female.

But of Judy has made her living misquoting and misattributing better minds. What is it she does say about bodies? "One is not simply a body, but, in some very key sense, one does one's body and, indeed, one does one's body differently from one's contemporaries and from one's embodied predecessors and successors as well." Honestly- what nonsense is this? this is cartesian dualism. this is the soul and the body distinctions. Who is doing the body if not the body judy? can you choose to not do your body? clearly not. Your body is you. every single cell. and when you die- your cells will either be burned into ashes or decompost into worm food. No religious souls nonsense. She even tells you right in the next paragraph- "It is, however, clearly unfortunate grammar to claim that there is a 'we' or an 'I' that does its body, as if a disembodied agency preceded and directed an embodied exterio". Then she goes on to reframe it as embodiment and possibilities. But that still doesnt take her away from cartesian dualism unfortunately- who is doing the embodying? who is intentionally organising the possibilities? at least avowedly religious people are honest about believing in souls. She cloaks it all in performance- but who is performing female? who is performing male? how do you perform that? I have no idea how to perform any sex. There are stereotypes- and I try to not perform any of them.

Lets go on: "When Beauvoir claims that 'woman' is a historical idea and not a natural fact, she clearly underscores the distinction between sex, as biological facticity, and gender, as the cultural interpretation or signification of that facticity.o be female is, according to that distinction, a facticity which has no meaning, but to be a woman is to have become a woman, to compel the body to conform to an historical idea of 'woman,' to induce the body to become a cultural sign, to materialize oneself in obedience to an historically delimited possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project." Ugh. Again- just because female is biological- doesnt mean it has no meaning judy. Are you trying to be dense darling? Female means xx- developmental pathway to produce ovaries- means puberty, menstruation and ovulation and pregnancy and someday- if you live long enough- menopause. If it didnt mean that- then female as a category would be meaningless. Our bodies judy are ourselves. Divorced from the body is "gender"- which is essentially roles, stereotypes or behaviours. You do not become less of a woman if you dress like a man- thats what De Beauvoir was saying about transvestites being a tragedy. Gender is imposed- historically determined way of limiting the ways in which "females" are expected to act. Its a prescriptive/normative category not a descriptive one.

Lets go on. "Because there is neither an 'essence' that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis". See what shes saying? shes saying there are no sexed souls- when we're talking about peoples behavior, stereotypes, roles in society- there is no essence that is being expressed through gender- there can therefore be no "cis" or "trans". You cannot know the inner essence of that which you cannot embody mate, especially since inner essences are suspect idea anyway. So there is no "wrong body". If the claim from trans activists was- we know we dont have souls that make us different- we just want to behave in gender stereotype non conforming ways- literally no one except some religious fundamentalists would have a problem. you dont have to define yourself as "non binary". just wear whatever clothing you like. But that is not the claim from activists and from later year butler- the claim is there is a gender soul, that little boys could be born in the wrong body if they like pink. and that alok vaid menon is born with a "non binary" soul unlike the rest of us with cis man or woman souls.

Lets go back to Judy then. "The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one's belief in its necessity and naturalness" - this is called living in the gender mania- thinking the way you perform "gender" is necessary or natural to you and hence intrinsic to you. Its not mate. women are women even if they do all masculine things- cause women are adult human females. How does judy come so close to the point and keep missing it youre wondering? cause she thinks material reality is immaterial- its all social constructivism.

She goes on to talk about personal is political- trying desperately to classify a second wave feminist slogan meant to solidify female solidarity and argue for the rights of women as a sex class into this idea of individual freedoms. She goes wrong because you cannot fight the sexism through neo-liberal individualism. You need sex classes. Its not turtles all the way down- there is a material reality there.

"My suggestion is that the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time". What utter rubbish- stuff you can only think if you think biological reality is meaningless. Sorry to say that we are not all defined by our clothes or the stereotypes we're performing. There are real bodies that really get harmed because of the sex they are- something an ivory tower academic would know nothing about. This is the opposite of what De Beauvoir said and butler doesnt have the decency or the courage to mention it or to counter it.

"Indeed, one ought to consider the futility of a political program which seeks radically to transform the social situation of women without first determining whether the category of woman is socially constructed in such a way that to be a woman is, by definition, to be in an oppressed situation"

The category of gender is socially constructed. Not sex. Not adult human female- woman. Why is the pope of gender deliberately obfuscating gender and sex? Adult human females- women - are oppressed, but they dont have to be to be defined as women. Its not social construction that makes us women- its the biological fact she dismisses as meaningless because it has no meaning in her privileged life. My body isnt socially constructed by gender roles. It just is a material reality.

" Indeed, if gender is the cultural significance that the sexed body assumes, and if that significance is codetermined through various acts and their cultural perception, then it would appear that from within the terms of culture it is not possible to know sex as distinct from gender". Its not possible to know sex as distinct from gender because she rejects material realities. She assumes women have agency in doing feminine things that then turn around and make them women. What a ridiculous idea- because men want to control womens bodies- women are policed when they do unfeminine things- they do those feminine things not to become women- they do those feminine things to avoid punishment.

"To guarantee the reproduction of a given culture, various requirements, wellestablished in the anthropological literature of kinship, have instated sexual reproduction within the confines of a heterosexually-based system of marriage which requires the reproduction of human beings in certain gendered modes which, in effect, guarantee the eventual reproduction of that kinship system" - heterosexuality- has zero do with gendered behavior, roles or stereotypes- and everything to do with sex- a biological fact. Only hetereosexual intercourse- the meeting of sperm and egg- can result in children- that is a biological fact. the fact that women are policed into compulsory heterosexuality to ensure that there is control over their material bodies and produce babies has much more to do with material bodies themselves- biological sex- than gender roles behaviour or stereotype. Bodies arent "cultivated" into discrete sexes. they are in discrete sexes. There is no human that produces a mix of sperm and eggs. there is no sperg or spegg. Sex is about material bodies- not gender- there is no cultivation there is just subordination based on it. Then she starts saying gender identity without even knowing what that is.

Do you know who popularised the phrase gender identity? it was John Money who performed cruel experiments on children including a cosmetic surgery where he changed a boy who had been badly circumcised into a boy who looked female. he told the parents to raise the boy as a girl. Come puberty the boy tried to commit suicide because he felt that something was wrong with his material body. And later went on to disavow his "girl" gender identity and claim he was a boy again. John Money took this and claimed there was a gender identity instead of the more obvious claim that women arent just castrated men.

the fact that butler uses "gender identity" when just pages ago she tried to avoid being called a cartesian dualist is honestly ridiculous.

I can keep going on and on but I have things to do. Address these questions if you like- at the very least all of this work should prove to you that we arent ignoramuses who just dont understand the secret preachings of the high priestess of gender. we understand what shes saying- we disagree about the importance of material reality or the road to utopia.

If you dont understand why unbounded social constructivism is harmful- may i present the following:

what else does JB thinks is contructed, and how far away from material reality she can get. This is what she says about incest in a chapter titled quandries of the incest taboo in "Whose Freud?" She says this: In relation to this epistemological set of quandaries, we need to remind ourselves that the distinction between event and wish is not as clear as it is sometimes held to be. It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be—and to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violations and those that are not—it is not necessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside. The fear, of course, is that, if it emerges that the child’s desire has been exploited or incited by incest, this will somehow detract from our understanding of parentchild incest as a violation. The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life. It may also be said to perpetrate a deprivation of another order. After all, when we try to think of what kind of exploitation incest can be, it is often precisely the child’s love that is exploited in the scene of incest. By refusing to consider what happens to the child’s love and desire in the traumatic incestuous relation with an adult, we fail to describe the depth and psychic consequence of that trauma."

I dont know about you- but I think thats pretty reprehensible. Regardless of how much reading into a childs desires and fantasies one does- its pretty reprehensible for anyone to claim the incest taboo should be problematised, In the material world- frontal lobe development and sexual development is a thing. Consent and other bodies distinct from our own consenting is a thing. Not being able to consent because of brain development is a thing. These arent just words to be twisted around- we're talking about children with material bodies. When you let go of material reality- all sorts of bad things happen.

Shes doing this because she wants to argue that same sex relationships are seen as suspect because of the absence of the incest taboo. Except she goes about it all wrong. We allow same sex relationships exactly because we have come to know over time that they do not lead to incest. The gays are not groomers. But ofcourse, she- like foucault- starts thinking she can use words and social construction to render material facts meaningless or irrelevant or at least biasing.

Shes not alone and this isnt the only time we've heard that from this movement. Here is notorious nonbinary special Alok Vaid Menon saying we shouldnt think of little girls as innocent and indeed, little girls are "kinky" and capable of "enacting violence". https://i1.wp.com/poptopic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/14102696_1868475616708809_6018263423458537991_n.jpg

Because of course this movement isn't just arguing that nonbinary/ trans people should just live and let live- its not arguing for non discrimination. its arguing for disruption. for queering. You should see a grown male-bodied person like alok as vulnerable and requiring protection while thinking about little girls as capable of hurting and as kinky. Its a movement that requires that we disbelieve women and young girls because their lives have been "grievable" for too long and now we've found a new "oppressed" category. Dont tell me its transphobic or hateful when im literally quoting your leaders.

As written, that post is obviously hate speech but that seems to be the rhetorical point rather than intended as mysogyny - ie, written in the style of OP but replacing the word trans with women?

So if it is hate speech when written about women, why is it not when said about trans people?

Unless I'm misunderstanding their intent here...

it isnt just replacing the word trans with women. Who in this thread has claimed trans people shouldnt work or go to law school or are all crazy? why are you deliberately misunderstanding what people are saying? we're asking if gender dysphoria and non-binary identification could be a symptom of complex mental illnesses- surely no one can argue that being female is a symptom of mental illness. You will have more sympathy for any movement that benefits men over any movement that is solely looking to liberate women.
The implication of the argument is pretty clear- if you dare disagree with us woman- we will call you irrational and hysterical because your material body has periods. The thing healthy female bodies do- which if they didnt - you and I wouldnt be born. And I might add- the thing only female bodies do. I know men think periods are gross and signs of illnesses- but every woman knows that she needs to go to a doctor to get herself checked out if she is routinely missing periods. Theyre the sign of a healthy body. But go ahead- laugh it off all that male centred bigotry.
You dont think its hate speech because its directed at women- who you think are more powerful than men who say theyre women. You need to introspect.

Please assume the best of the poster and if it was a troll, then ignore it - no one reasonable actually believes any of that nonsense to be true. But if being charitable, the point of the post was a misguided attempt that calling an entire group mentally ill can be triggering and upsetting, especially if the evidence and science and cause and effect relating to trans people is complicated.

so this is the masked off misogyny thats at the heart of it. I know I know- youre joking you were trying to make a point- no one should believe your words until you want them to.

No one here has said a single thing about non-binary people that you have- no one said they should be discriminated at the workplace, or that they shouldnt work or go to law school, or that they are irrational because theyre non binary. Or that theyre not equal to everyone else.

Exactly the opposite. People are enquiring very gently if mental illnesses- complex mental illnesses could have as one of their symptoms non-binary identification/ trans identification or gender dysphoria. and people are insisting that non-binary people are just the same as everyone else- just as special as everyone else.

If you could show me science that proved women really were so irrational and emotional during their period that they went beyond the range of anything a man might do or say- then I would agree that maybe women shouldnt be handling nukes. Can you show me that? wheres the study?

If you could prove to me- through empirical data that women are really bad at law school and shouldnt go and are really bad at practicising laws and shouldnt do it. I might change my mind. It so happens that you are just wrong about that- nearly every batch ive seen in law school- and ive seen more than 9 because I went back several times- women outperform men in exams and in competitions and after law school- they simply seem to have better careers on average than men do. They incur a disadvantage if they have babies- but thats something we need to figure out if we can or should do something about.

Will you subject your group to the same scrutiny? what youre essentially threatening here is - we will be misogynistic and awful if you dont go along with this. Not so charming. Keep it up. Help more people come over to our side.

Yeah so I'm a woman. I don't think that anyone who talks about other genders the way you do get to claim feminism. You want to kick away the ladder, I don't.

My point is that this horrific discriminatory story telling, in which you make all kinds of assumptions and insist that all non binary people are as you imagine the non binary people in your life to be is exactly how sexist men talk about women.

Every non binary person I know is mentally healthier than less introspective idiots who have never been to therapy because of their privilege. In learning to accept themselves in a world full of bigots like you, they have developed a deep sense of compassion and empathy that I don't see anywhere in this thread. Every single one of them is also a superstar because they had to be, to be treated with common decency. Why are your anecdotes which frankly reek of your prejudice superior to mine?

Shame on you for showing zero interest in all the work that it took for women to be able to study and practice law. I don't want to be in any group that is your transphobic 'side'. You are here seeking validation for your bigotry when you should be asking yourself difficult questions about why you make the assumptions you make about people who are different from you.

Im not claiming- I am feminist. You dont get to gatekeep feminism when you cannot even define what feminism is. What ladder am i pulling up? I dont think non-binaries are oppressed in any real way at all. Go on wear whatever clothing or hair style you want- im not trying to limit anyones gender expression. no "non binary" person is discriminated against in education or employment on sight the way women are. If there is a discrimination claim- the claim is " you dont echo my beliefs about gender and that makes me uncomfortable". Im afraid that political and philosophical positions are not immutable characteristics.

I am disagreeing that there are sexed souls because im a feminist. You are wedded to gender so much you think it matters more than history and more than sex and more than material reality. your solution for womens liberation is for them all to claim they are non binary because they dont like the stereotypes. I would argue that when soldiers are raping women theyre not stopping to ask what their pronouns are. That despite all evidence- sex is immediately knowable in most cases which is why men from oppressor groups rape the women from the oppressed group and not the men.

My experiences dont trump yours. But yours dont trump mine either. And if my experiences are reeking of prejudice- yours reek of cultish hero-worship based on victimhood status. I bet you wouldnt say a single one of those things about your straight cis male friends- because you dont think theyre superior based on your victimhood heirarchy. I on the other hand- if a cis male was behaving the same way I would ask the same damn questions. Consider that people might disagree with you because they have actually trans identified people in their lives and its terrifying to see the lack of serious research and the lack of non ideological research on this stuff. that theyre terrified that despite everything their friends and siblings and kids arent getting better. that transition is harming their loved ones.

There is some medical literature done by Lisa Littman that shows theres a social contagion, there is other medical literature that shows dysphoria is a symptom of other mental illnesses. the cass review absolutely shows that focussing on identity as the cause of all mental illnesses is woefully misguided and actually harms trans identifying people.

Its not horrifying to ask if gender dysphoria is a symptom or not. The science simply is not settled. Im not saying we treat anyone badly because they have mental illnesses- unlike you- im saying that if someone has mental illnesses we should think carefully about the consequences of affirming their beliefs v cognitive behavioural therapy and more medical research.

There was a point of time- before the activists took over- that even trans people argued that they were being underserved by the medical community. that the medical community was forcing them to be life long patients. thats all im saying- if social transition does anything- if it is as powerful as you claim it is- we have to consider that it might not be all good. Why dont suicide rates decrease after transition? why are trans activist groups hiding and lobbying medical organisations to hide data about long term health outcomes?

You have ZERO idea what youre talking about. You havent researched it all. You have read a few people saying the same thing and bought into it without thinking about it.

You think youre building some utopia? youre spelling ruin for these young people and for women.

Go ahead and shame me. I dont care about shaming from religious nuts. But when the chips are down- your side has cheerleaded the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century. Thousands of kids sterilised because of gender expression, theyre left without sexual dysfunction and with serious long term illnesses that are irreversible. Thats on you. Hundreds of women losing jobs losing medals losing recognition all because you think men who might be effeminate and want to be women get to be so. Hundreds of women locked in prisons and raped by male bodied rapists. Thousands more refused the ability to have same sex care when theyre disabled, have same sex spaces that protect them from male bodied rapists. Women in rape crisis centres told to go to therapy if theyre uncomfortable working with a male bodied person in therapy. All of that is on you. And your desperate desire to prize esoteric academic philosophy over the material realities of girls and women.

Im not seeking validation for bigotry- youre only posting to virtue signal. Im posting because im tired of having nonsense said without challenging it.

ZERO people other than you here have made assumptions about anyone who has different ideas than them. You have come to this with nothing except assumptions and bad faith misreadings of perfectly reasonable questions.

"your side has cheerleaded the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century. Thousands of kids sterilised because of gender expression, theyre left without sexual dysfunction and with serious long term illnesses that are irreversible. Thats on you. Hundreds of women losing jobs losing medals losing recognition all because you think men who might be effeminate and want to be women get to be so. Hundreds of women locked in prisons and raped by male bodied rapists. Thousands more refused the ability to have same sex care when theyre disabled, have same sex spaces that protect them from male bodied rapists"

Where are all these hundreds and thousands of people? The only transpeople I read about involved in attacks are the ones attacked by people with the kind of prejudice and hatred that's all over this thread.

Consider that youre in a media bubble. Read the cass review, read Hannah Barnes' book, read Abigail Shriers book and Helen Joyce's book. There are stories of hundreds of kids being pushed into transitioning because of gender non conforming behavior. Gay kids and Autistic kids. Watch Vaishnavi Sundar's Dysphoric if reading is too much for you.

Go to shewon.org there are hundreds of women who have had their opportunities stolen because of your movement. Go to reduxx- youll read hundreds and thousands of stories about women who have been locked in prisons or been denied same sex spaces with male bodied rapists because they claim theyre trans. Read the NHS Confederation guidelines which states that women dont have a right to same sex care.

Just because youve closed your eyes and ears to it - doesnt mean its not happening. Your ignorance of the world doesnt mean the world doesnt exist.

Clearly by your response you would at least on principle think those things are awful. Shouldnt you try to at least find out if those things are true rather than dismissing it as projection? Would you dismiss similar allegations made against any other group as "projection"? why dont you look up the many references ive provided to at least find out?

I know why. Its easier to believe men and dismiss women as crazy. Thats all.

Please mind your language and how you put your arguments across - this thread has long veered from wanting an open and respectful conversation (though it could have been worse and thank you all for trying).

Tldr: both sides believe they are morally correct and on the right side of history and can show harm that's being / been done by policies but can't agree on several issues which historically have no easy answers. Now the argument, as expected, is rotating on which side is suffering more, who is historically and at present getting censored more by which part of the media, and calling the other sides arguments 'crap'. This is not productive.

Unfortunately in this thread there has been little talk of substantively what policies or compromises could exist that accept both camps' concerns.

Sharing things like that website is not helpful to be honest. No one denies that trans people sometimes commit crimes - all people do. But a website about every crime and dog whistle headline about trans people is not journalism or anything more than fear mongering that is not helpful.

Imagine a website that is exclusively populated with headlines about crimes committed by X ethnicity, religion, immigrants or sexual orientation? A doomscrolling website with headlines of all crimes committed by gay people or women in the world? A website that only carries crimes or violence committed against trans people now or historically?

Consuming such media is not part of a healthy media diet and does not lead to constructive debate and constructive outcomes but only to embittering and hardening lines between both camps.

That said, no solution here other than, thank you all participants in this thread for trying to engage but sadly it seems to have run its course in the present format.

show us evidence of all these crimes! They dont happen! Youre projecting! No wait why are you showing us websites that are dedicated to documenting these crimes that dont happen or are blacked out of traditional mainstream media ? why are you even looking at this? so bigoted! so unhealthy!

Sorry- but as long as you all keep insisting that these things dont happen- we have to make you face the uncomfortable facts that they do in fact happen. Crimes from other groups arent being misreported and not reported because of sympathetic traditional media. Some of these crimes are literally reported as "womens crimes" because trans women are women.

Im not trying to prove which side suffers more- you keep saying that because you wish it were true. Im trying to prove that despite your side not choosing to see the facts- there are in fact harmful effects from buying into this.

People absolutely deny that trans people commit crimes. They think "oppressed groups" cannot turn around to hurt women.The person is literally accusing me of projection! They think someone rejecting masculinity is also rejecting male pattern violence its not true! there are studies! 19 % of all men in some prisons are sex offenders - compared to almost half of trans people in the same prisons who are in there for sex offences.

Dog whistle? which specific crime reported in there do you think is untrue? its not dogwhistling if its true just because you dont like it.

Its not disrespectful to say that. You find all the time to lecture me about respect but when the other person is literally saying "shame on you" you sit quiet. What even? I havent denied that trans people are victims of crimes or that we shouldnt do something about it. Its the what we do about it where we might disagree.

Crimes committed by gay people or black people are not under-reported or reported as crimes committed by white people or by straight people. Once you give up sex based language it becomes really really hard to keep data about "transwomen" reliable. Look up alice sullivans work on this if you like.

i get that its upsetting to see all this evidence that is very bothersome and shattering to the world view. I dont go to reduxx every day even. I cannot bear to keep looking at that news. And heres the rub- there is a lot more disturbing stuff out there I havent even started talking about because I honestly dont want to think about or type that stuff out. But ask yourself if any group you didnt particularly feel sorry for- if white nationalists or israeli defence forces or the taliban or hindu facists were committing all those crimes. And they were not being reported in mainstream media or were being misattributed because of "identity". Then would you chide and scold women who put that information together? Do you think people who keep sex offender registries are unhealthy and out to be hateful and bigoted? do you think reporters who broke news on catholic priests were dog whistling and unfairly targeting catholics?

Women have historically had to do this for themselves because men don't believe them and dismiss them and say crimes against them do not happen, and if they do those crimes werent that bad, if they were bad its not a big deal because its a few bad apples, if its not a few bad apples, its still not all men, its not individual men -who shouldn't have to feel guilty about themselves, and if the argument is still not won- then they say oh those women must have deserved it anyway for being stuck up/ prudish/ easy/ a bigot. Whatever. Why don't we believe women who are showing evidence over men who are asking you to just accept what they say because its the "kind" thing to do. How is that kind to these women?

At the risk of being condescending, please don't read stuff like reduxx. Any bot or incel activist could literally start a website carrying nothing but Baby Reindeer female stalker news stories (and scraping the US press alone there'll be enough crazy Florida people daily alone to make this easy) and if you read this for a month it might make anyone think women are crazy and victims of female stalkers are everywhere. Or do so about Florida Man (who is obviously provably crazy) https://floridaman.com/

IMHO that's part of the problem with this debate - the media and echochambers in this can be so one-sided and motivated to stir outrage and get clicks or online clout about their cause they actually hinder reasoned debate.

And comparing and tallying up of harms gets us nowhere helpful.

Thanks both sides for, at least in part, your apparent efforts in trying to keep keep the tone of this conversation civil and mostly semi-polite and factual though. It is appreciated.

I’m sorry you have no arguments left but your condescension. Please point to a story on reduxx that is False. I’ve explained why reduxx was created - it’s so these crimes which were previously reported as womens crimes or not reported at all - and their victims - see some light of day. You keep telling me not to read it- it is upsetting to read - but that doesn’t make it untrue.

It’s ridiculous to claim this is the same as floridaman or the same as incel stuff. Floridaman exists because of a law in Florida the sunshine act that unsealed court records and allowed people to report on petty stuff. I don’t think rape and sexual harassment and pedophilia are petty.

Do you really think women who are victims of rape and assault and stalking and being videoed in restrooms and children who are victims of sexual assault are in the same category as men who are upset because they’re not getting sex they think they’re owed by women ? You think those two things are equivalent ?

There’s no talking to someone whose immediate reaction to seeing all of those cases is not “ omg that’s horrible” and is instead “ ew why are bigots reporting these cases ?”

This isn’t about one off cases that don’t form a pattern. Females rarely commit sex crimes. Like 98% of the time it’s males. There are studies to show that male pattern criminality doesn’t vanish after a man transitions to woman. Like 50-60% of the “trans women “ in prison in the Uk are there because of sexual offences. The comparable rate for cis men is 20-30%.

You keep arguing that it doesn’t happen, or that if it does happen it must be too rare, if it isn’t too rare then it’s irrelevant, and if it isn’t irrelevant it must be because women are bigots and brainwashed and crazy. You’ve closed your mind off to the fact that maybe you might have been sold an ideology that does harm.

You literally have someone on this thread comparing heterosexuality (and by implication homosexuality) to only dating within caste and how “sexually shunned” groups might be right in their thinking even if they should have been more polite.

Only one side has produced facts in this discussion. Your side has only chided and scolded and shamed and censored. Where are facts disproving a single thing I’ve said ? When presented with evidence absolutely none of you have seriously considered it without dismissing it as being too crazy and stemming from resentful.

You keep saying I’m comparing harm when the other side hasn’t proven any harm at all - only asserted it in some mealy mouthed way. Besides you would be hard pressed to find cases of terfs assaulting or being violent toward trans people. Because violence is a male thing. Think about that. There is more hatred online from trans activists toward terfs who only mostly argue that sex is real, than towards men who actually beat up and murder trans people. What is the argument ? Men targeting another group of men should mean women have to stop speaking truth and mollify and validate and self erase ?

There’s no point to tallying up harm ? There’s no point to knowing who was hurt and by whom and when ? Why ? Cause it makes your worldview and your convictions difficult to maintain ? Can you imagine saying that about any other group except women ? Can you imagine saying that about victims of caste atrocities or communalism or naziism? It’s only because theyre women you think we should all shut up about it because it’s impolite.

You congratulate women for being polite and kind as if that is what they were made to do. You think resentment is bad because it’s unearned. There are values more important than politeness and good feelings. Values like truth, like reason, like honesty, integrity, standing up for those weaker than you, courage, defiance. What a sad world where women only get to be polite- they don’t get to be any of those other things without being shamed.

This might be condescending - but stop trying to have the last word when you know you’ve lost. You’ve done nothing in this thread except scold and police women who dare to dissent from your orthodoxy. Take some time and go look in the mirror - consider why you want to play that role in the first place.

Didn't intend to wade in this deep but no one ever said in this thread that trans people NEVER commit violence, just that it's often over-exaggerated for rhetorical reasons by their opponents. What the trans community seems to be objecting to is that every time the toilet access issue is brought up, for instance, they might be confronted with the case of a possible trans person committing a crime against women in a toilet, which is often invoked as a spectre. Of course it happens but it's obviously relatively rare amongst literally millions of assaults, just as Florida Men are real too amongst millions of Floridans (didn't know about that reason for that, that's interesting).

It's possible to empathise that some women might feel discomfort with the toilet issue, which is a little complicated, and not saying it doesn't happen, but then the question also arises of how many times do trans women get violently or sexually assaulted in men's toilets and should we compare harms in order to decide whose claim is more 'valid' or who 'wins'? And should feminists stand with or support trans women who get assaulted in men's toilets? Should they do so if they perceive this to increase risk to themselves? Is this a legitimate fear that is statistically backed or more of a spectre? Does it compare at all to the risk of being assaulted in a bathroom by a non-trans man, which happens all the time too presumably?
Surely any assault in a bathroom by anyone against a woman, whether trans or born woman, is one too many, and it might seem likely there's some natural middle ground there between the camps but ironically this is one of the biggest dog whistle topics that everyone feels most strongly and gets toxic about.

Gendered prisons is, of course, a similarly fraught issue though you wouldn't deny that trans women also face violence in men's prisons, right?

Likewise, many trans people would presumably be critical on gender reassignment surgeries at too young an age too, and no one is denying that there are cases when it goes wrong and real damage is done. Likewise no one is denying that completely suppressing the existence of gender fluidity in children or denying medical advice to them can lead to a higher risk of suicide, for instance. But that is something for the medical and psychological establishments to work out a bit and for more research to be done on (and yes, some research already exists which suggests in some places the pendulum has swung too far). But hopefully that will sort itself out with time.

The problem with your posts are not your arguments but your tone, such as your last paragraph. Everyone understand that you have legitimate reasons to be angry but you're trying to constantly 'win' an argument where wanting to 'win' on such issues seems to carry with it a 'loss' to trans people, (falsely) trying to make this into a zero-sum game.

Do you accept that trans people too, much like women, face violence, harrassment and discrimination? Do you think something should be done to protect that community? Do you have any practical suggestions on a middle ground or compromise that would protect both communities' rights and concerns?

Or do you believe being trans is a 'made up thing' and trans women are men who don't need any additional protection. If that's the case, there is perhaps very little common ground to be found or won in this, in which case it's better to stop talking... But judging by your engagement and research on the issue, you have thought about more practical solutions.

"Where are all these hundreds and thousands of people? The only transpeople I read about involved in attacks are the ones attacked by people with the kind of prejudice and hatred that's all over this thread."

"I've never heard of anyone being called transphobic for exercising their autonomy over who they want to have sex with. So bizarre. These projections often are."

Are you not seeing the denial that transwomen commit crimes or are you wanting to see the denial? are you moving goalposts? It is obviously inaccurate to say no one ever said that these people dont commit crimes when there are these posts on this very thread? Ive only responded with reduxx links and terfisaslur.com links to these posts.

Where is the proof that its overexagerrated? Do you understand how numbers work? https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/ Here is one link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/24/government-figures-70-per-cent-of-transgender-prisoners-are/#:~:text=figures%20have%20revealed.-,At%20least%20181%20of%20the%20244%20transgender%20inmates%2C%20more%20than,grievous%20bodily%20harm%20and%20robbery. Here is another

Here is a third: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
A fourth: https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

- i can provide more. Half of the males in prisons who claim they are trans have committed and been convicted of sexual crimes and that rate for non-trans males in prisons is 17%. That is a significant difference. That means these are not over-exaggerated. The propensity to commit sexual crimes for the trans identified males is literally statistically higher compared to regular "cis" men. And regardless- even one is too many. even one woman being assaulted by a transwoman- a male in a womens space is too many and its not just one. Its a significantly higher number than that and its more likely to happen with a transwoman than with a "cis" man.

California prisons are providing women prisoners with condoms because 40 males are at last count in womens prisons. why provide all women with condoms? because its not likely that he will just rape one and leave it be. And these women are in prison- they cannot leave. And many of the women are in prison after a long history of dealing with male violence and when they go to prison they get told they will still have to deal with male violence so they best carry around condoms so at least they dont get pregnant. This should turn your stomach.

https://www.iwf.org/2024/03/19/why-are-womens-prisons-in-california-passing-out-condoms/
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/ca-womens-prisons-anticipate-pregnancy-sb123

What youre arguing- is that for all the rapes and sexual crimes women have to endure- transwomen only commit a small percentage- so they should get a pass to be in sex segregated spaces. How many rapes do you think are acceptable risk? Do you know that for all the people who own guns very few actually end up using it on another person? do you think we shouldnt have gun control laws then? or do you think the small minority of mentally ill people who murder school children by the hundreds mean that we should actually have gun control?

Thats how safeguarding works- you recognise broad patterns in criminality and then exclude anyone from that group and you do background checks. So everyone who might have serious mental illnesses is excluded from owning guns, and everyone who has a history of domestic violence is excluded from owning guns. And everyone with a male body is excluded from sex segregated spaces.

This is why there are sex segregated spaces in the first place. Not all men harm women- most men do not- but we have sex segregated toilets and prisons and rape shelters and schools to protect from the statistically significant percentage of men who do harm women. If a statistically significant percentage of transwomen are in prison for sexual crimes- and that is proven by authenticated government backed studies- then thats enough justification for excluding transwomen from sex segregated spaces.

If you learn the history- we had unisex bathrooms and prisons and schools and sports and the like before- the reason we moved away from that was because women were being harmed and were being disadvantaged. I cannot believe we have to relitigate it because some males say they feel like theyre "a woman on the inside". Every predatory male has an incentive to say that because then he is put in the womens space- its a nothing statement that requires no surgeries or hormones or medical interventions at all- its purely an internal state that is unverifiable. You leave the door open to that when you decide to prioritise claims about identities and genderfeels over biological material facts like sex.

Of all the men who rape women- im willing to bet that disabled men and old men are a very small number- but we dont allow disabled men and elderly men into womens spaces and womens prisons and rape shelters and toilets do we?

Youre essentially arguing "not all transwomen" when no one has argued all transwomen- we've only argued that there are enough- that there are statistical material facts that warrant sex segregation and safeguarding. And that these studies and numbers and the reporting of all of these incidents is blacked out or it is attributed as "womens" crimes. It gets harder and harder to tell these truths. That is why reduxx exists, as distasteful and "phobic" as you might find it. A phobia or a sceptre- is fear or something thats not real- this is not a phobia or a sceptre- its fear of something that IS real.

Just because transwomen might be subject to male violence doesnt mean women have to sacrifice their hard won rights for sex segregated spaces and safeguarding and sex based rights to accomodate them. Gay men are subject to male violence, pedophiles in prisons are raped consistently- that doesnt mean we put them all in the womens prisons because gay men and pedophiles and transwomen (conceding that these are distinct groups) are still male- and they still can and do harm women, we should find another solution.

To argue that the solution then is for women to give up their protections and rights is to argue that women have to perform penance for the crimes still committed by men. I reject the idea that any woman anywhere is responsible for the criminal actions of every man.

My solution to this problem is to have single occupancy third spaces for any male that feels threatened in the male space. I agree with you- even one male bodied person getting raped because he wore a dress that day or because hes gay is too much- im not comparing harms- you are dismissing harms to women. Im suggesting that the solution isnt to erase womens sex based rights. Rights arent pie generally- until you want a piece of the pie I have specifically carved out for me. Everybody has a property right- but nobody has a right to come on to my property and claim it for themselves or demand that we share- to argue that that is legitimate- is to argue that there are no property rights except for the people who feel comfortable ignoring property rights.

But of course you will find that trans activists and trans people oppose this solution. They dont just "want to be safe" or "want to pee" they want to be validated as "women" by being in womens sex segregated spaces. its the validation theyre after- not just the safety. Safety is a concern easily addressed. All of this money that goes into stonewall and ACLU, and human rights watch and all of these organisations who spend hundreds of millions arguing that sex isnt real- take that money and build third places for gender non-conforming males.

Validation requires that women give up their language, their sex based rights, their sex segregated spaces, their safeguarding and even their bodies to please males. No one in a free society should have to validate the internal psychological states of anybody. Not at this cost and not at any cost.

The problem with surgeries at "too young an age " is not that the surgeries could go wrong. its that children are not capable of understanding the implications of these surgeries and are therefore unable to provide informed consent. All children. And then that the surgeries even when they go perfectly- do not do what they are claimed to do. You cannot actually change sex- every cell in your body is coded xx or xy. You will be a permanent patient by doing this. You can gain a superficial appearance to a sex organ by moulding your body through surgeries- but neo-phalluses dont function like regular penises and neo-vaginas have nothing in common with regular vaginas at all- real vaginas self clean, they expand and contract as necessary, they help shed the uterine lining, they dont close up on their own, they dont tear up to have fecal matter from intestines spill into them. neo vaginas do none of those things. Quoting andrea long chu- its a wound thats carved into your body that the body will forever try to heal from. The organic body parts are signs of a healthy body. Modification procedures almost always result in ill health. Even hormone therapies. Exogenous hormones produce cancer, they produce osteoporosis, they might even impair brain development. There is a reason that we decided to prevent adult athletes from taking exogenous hormones- because they were killing themselves by taking these drugs trying to win competitions. It is impossible for a child to understand what the loss of sexual function, the loss of orgasm, the loss of fertility can all mean. It is impossible for children to consent to this just as or even more than it is impossible for children to consent to alcohol or cigarettes or tattoos or sex.

"Gender fluidity" implies that male children should be allowed to wear dresses and girl tomboys should be allowed to climb trees without being punished. I agree with that- most gender critical terfs agree with that. Where we disagree is telling children that just because a boy likes pink and playing princess and a girl might like trucks and playing sports means that those kids actually belong to the opposite sex and should be validated as such, that their names and their bodies should be changed, that they should be put on a pathway to transition including puberty blockers, exogenous hormones, and harmful surgeries. I want those kids to completely be themselves , and I want those kids thought that there are no "male" behaviours and "female" behaviours- they can be as masculine or as feminine as they like- that doesnt change their sex or who they are. I want to abolish gender- you want to reify it to be so important it requires sex changes and body modification.

This is exactly what the cass review found- they found that when children were found to be behaving in "gender nonconforming" ways, they would get primed and asked by their teachers and by care workers if they were sure of their "gender identity" and prompted to go on a "gender journey". Kids being kids would see that gay and trans kids were getting praise and attention for being brave. Social contagion is a real thing. Young girls would think " i dont look or feel like a kardashian- i must be a boy". Mermaids- the leader of ngos in youth gender stuff- literally told young boys and girls- that there are GI joes and barbies- and if they are male and think they arent like GI joes or theyre female and they dont feel like or relate to barbie- they should go on a gender journey. That prompts kids to think that the sex their born with is something they should change to match more closely their personality. https://www.transgendertrend.com/questions-school-mermaids-training-teachers/ This is harmful. This suppresses gender nonconforming behaviour in the worst possible way. considering this is mostly being done to kids who will grow up to be gay or are autistic- this is literally conversion therapy and conversion surgery. https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapy https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2024/03/inside-the-collapse-of-the-tavistock-centre https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

Medical professionals knew they were doing this- and they continued to do it until those evil bigoted terfs stopped them. The cass review found this and the World professional association for transgender health- the WPATH had its files and emails leaked where doctors were joking about how these kids cannot consent and how they were "transing the gay away".

You think that trans people in india may not buy into child transition- but they absolutely have. Hook line and sinker- there is no dissent in the community because one usually doesnt find dissent in religious groups- because their entire movement is aping what their counterparts in the west did. Do you remember when "Vqueeram" aditya sahai was outed as a fetishist by right wing groups because he was tapped to write a guidance on gender inclusion in schools? Im sure you felt outrage at that. Did you read what was in the guidance? I did. https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Inclusion_of_Transgender_Children_in_School_Education.pdf Here is a copy. Look up "puberty blockers". The guidance literally says that school teachers- you should know how capable school teachers in india are of making medical diagnoses- should talk to gender non conforming kids about the availability of puberty blockers. that they should " Convey that these are available and accessible for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, who may later identify as transgender persons. ". 80% of children and adolescents experiencing dysphoria end up not transitioning- puberty actually solves the dysphoria and they realise they are just gay, regular old boring gay. He wanted to give the same drugs we give to castrate rapists and to cancer patients to those kids. Why? because they acted a little flamboyant?

Do you know what the original reason for puberty blockers and prescribing hormones to kids was? it was because trans identified males were upset they didnt "pass as women" - to the eye in their appearance- because puberty had given them obviously male characteristics- wouldnt it have been wonderful if they had never had those characteristics or were able to block those characteristics from forming so they could have different more feminine appearance. This is a cosmetic intervention. It has nothing to do with suicidality. Children by and large dont commit suicide and when they do the causes are very complex and knotted, and like i have shown elsewhere- not just for children but even for adults- transitioning doesnt lower the risk of suicide infact it may increase it. Because living in a mutilated body that makes you a permanent patient has got to be awful.

This is madness- and this suppresses gender nonconforming behavior through the worst ways- and it wont stop itself if we dont seriously and skeptically reconsider the idea of sexed souls and gendered identities.

Notice- through all of this- I havent denied or compared harms the way you want me to. Im not denying that trans identified males may face harms. Im denying that the solution to those harms is to follow blindly whatever trans people might want- regardless of what rigorous science says or what other groups might be affected. You have an all or nothing approach. I dont. You have decided that anyone who disagrees with you must hate gender nonconformity or hate trans people. You decided at the very outset that disbelief in gender souls was "hate speech". Hate speech used to mean threats, incitement to violence, and slurs. I havent done any of those things. But you have consistently admonished me to be kind while the other guy gets to say women are irrational because of their periods, that we're all bigots for disagreeing, that we're all hateful for daring to have a different opinion and that we're all too stupid and dumb and we dont read because we dont buy the bullcrap judith butler sells. You have done nothing to police his/her tone have you? its only my tone you find objectionable. Because appearing to care about trans people and going on about how beautiful and brave and stunning these people are is more important than actually caring about what happens to women in prisons or children who might be homosexual. That is your measure of kindness and I reject it entirely. Dissent by itself is not unkind unless you are in a religion where apostasy is criminal.

If the only claim of "transwomen" was that they needed protection from discrimination based on gender performance- nobody would disagree. But their claims dont stop there. Its not just- "hijras should be able to get a job" its not just " men who wear dresses should be able to go to universities like everyone else. They arent stopped from those things. Its " you must treat us as women because we say we are women", "why cant we change sex on government ID". The claim isnt " we want separate spaces for protection" or " we want open categories in sports" its "we want to go into the womens room and into womens rape crisis shelters and womens schools and we want to compete in the womens category". No body is protesting trans people competing in open categories- the problem is that male bodied people want to compete in female categories. The problem is that there are no sex segregated spaces anymore because "identity" which is unverifiable undetectable and unfalsifiable is supposed to be more important than sex - which is a material fact in every single mammal. There is only one oppressed community on this planet that you can identify your way into and none of us can say boo according to you- thats women. why is that?

No one is saying we must ignore the material oppression of trans people where this oppression is found- but arguing against discrimination or arguing against material oppression doesnt require i believe their shoddy philosophy or their religious beliefs or practice their rituals. I dont need to believe "trans women are women" to think they shouldnt be raped- I dont think men should be raped. I dont need to believe they are women to think they should be allowed to go to school and get a job like everyone else- they should and people who traffic kids and prevent them from going to school should be jailed and everyone regardless of sex who is trafficked should be offered ways to come out of that "profession" including adult education and skilling and vocational education and university education if theyre capable. You only need to believe that they are women to believe that sex doesnt matter. Male people have all rights every male person has ever had. No male has rights that are exclusive to women- adult human females. thats all im saying- that sex matters.

You need to stop thinking you know what the right answers are or youre on the right side of history because of vibes. All evidence would show that the gender critical terfy side are actually maybe the ones on the right side of history. You cannot be accusing me of hate and ignorance and policing my tone when you cannot honestly say youve considered and read any of the literature ive brought up in this exchange before forming an opinion. I have read judith butler and I proved, I am familiar with statistics on this stuff, I am familiar with the medical aspects of it- i have bothered to find out what hijras are and what intersex is, and ive read studies and papers on gender medicine. I have been in very lib-fem spaces that are all gaga over gender identity nonsense and now im an apostate because- one night- i said - im so sure about this stuff I bet I could listen to what evil terfs say and counter everything. And I couldnt. And I had the decency and honesty to change my mind when confronted by evidence and arguments I had not considered. You dont have that decency or honesty - which is why instead of saying "youre right and im wrong". Youve made it about tone. Instead of acknowledging when I have facts that dont bode well for your argument- you have shifted goal posts.

Transwomen dont harm women- not enough transwomen harm women- not all transwomen harm women- even if they do harm women women should put up with it- youre only concerned because you hate trans people (because its inconceivable someone would actually be concerned about women)- even if they do harm women- those women are probably bigoted anyway so it doesnt matter. This is the narcissists prayer redone. And it follows exactly the pattern your arguments have followed in this exchange. Go look in the mirror.

Thanks for your considered response and links. If someome from the 'other camp' has a considered non trollish response trying to find common ground, let's hear it.

> You cannot be accusing me of hate and ignorance and policing my tone when you cannot honestly say youve considered and read any of the literature ive brought up in this exchange before forming an opinion.

Moderating tone and stopping toxicity is actually one of the main points of moderation, so thank you for making your point in a more balanced manner. It would help the strength of the 'Terf' side if the more vocal ones on Twitter stopped assuming that all people disagreeing with them must be woman-haters or 'religious' crazy cult people, as it would behove the twitter trans activists from bashing terfs as transphobes or out of touch.

There are probably more things both sides agree on than disagree on.

That's why tone and the way you say should be important to mods, not just what you say - because the real harm both sides cause is to stop debate, because it gets replaced with ad hominem personal attacks where facts don't matter anymore.

You’re only moderating tone on one side. You’ve been berating me to be kind because you’ve assumed I must be fundamentally unkind to not automatically buy into gender mania. You haven’t once considered anything the other guy is saying to be unkind or cruel even though it is demonstrably so. You don’t moderate him.

I have had to navigate this entire exchange thinking I will be censored because even before one post you showed your bias where you assume people will be bigoted and hateful. Why is that ? Consider that you’re not as pure as you think you are.

Consider also that for those of us who have been on this side of the debate for so long - and we’ve been consistently shut down because we’re allegedly “bigoted” and “hateful” and being told to shut up and not think and “be kind”- that kind of grandstanding about “kindness” particularly stings.

If you thought children were being mutilated and harmed en masse, if you thought women were being raped and assaulted and murdered and violated, if you thought the few opportunities given to women in short lists and sports were now being taken away, in fact the very language for women to articulate their collective struggles was now deemed “phobic”. And you had been trying to tell people- and instead every time you tried to speak you had to face being called a bigot and hateful and being censored and be told you were unkind all because you cared enough to educate yourself - consider how measured your words would be.

I think terfs on twitter are remarkably composed given they’re constantly being told by an online mob to “choke on trans girld*ck” you have zero clue what it’s been like for those of us who have been aware of these harms for a long long time. Just go look up “terf” on twitter and see all the abuse. That’s why you can’t imagine why were agitated or why we might resent being told to be kind by someone who hasn’t even bothered to understand our positions before scolding us. Doing that - that’s bigoted if anything. Be kind is the current day version of “you’re so shrill”. It’s sexist nonsense. Go on and find one truly unkind thing I’ve said.- I’ll defend all of it.

The other side doesn’t have a response. I’ve been in the same argument a hundred times now. The other side never produces evidence and never actually bothers debating or considering what terfs are saying. They just want to shame us as bigots and silence us because this whole movement is built on lies, deception and a fundamentally flawed understanding of what good people do. I’ll bet money. There won’t be a response.

We don’t fundamentally agree with each other on anything. I know you want to think everyone’s good - especially the men who silence women- but it’s just not true. There really are people who want to harm others and there really are useful idiots who enable them.

The only person who had had to face adhominem on this thread constantly is me. If you really go back and read the posts you’ll see that but you likely won’t.

"gender affirming care", surgeries hormones and puberty blockers are associated with a 12x more increase in suicidality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11063965/

There is no need to keep repeating the suicide lie when really- the evidence proves quite the contrary.

Can't both be true? That the medical establishment is perhaps giving out drugs too readily nowadays to kids who are too young, while also accepting that some young trans people might benefit from more care?

Suicides appear to be real and not a lie (though research on both sides will always have a difficult time isolating causes and correlation, much like the link you shared also):

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/

Did you even read that study?

These are adult transgendered people. Presumably they’ve started transition. Why then are they still committing suicide ? What are the comorbidities ? Is this a self report or are these tracking emergency visits like the NCBI study ?

The lie isn’t that there isn’t suicide. The lie is that there is child suicide and that transitioning prevents Suicide. There is no proof of either. The study you’ve cited doesn’t prove your point.

All young trans identified people can benefit from more care. That’s a silly argument. We don’t prescribe medicine and surgeries and call it “life saving” on the off chance that it works. Imagine another disease where the patient is able to self diagnose and then essentially self medicate- get exactly the drugs and surgeries they want. You can’t imagine it. This only happens in cosmetics.

We prescribe medicine and surgeries after clinical trials and long term follow up and rigorous diagnostic tests and we know that it will work. It’s called evidence based medicine.

No child can consent to this stuff given how serious this is. Even if some might feel better in the immediate aftermath - they cannot meaningfully consent and they’re often not even informed about all the risks. Thinking we should still do it is thinking that “do no harm” shouldn’t be the first principle of medical practice. And thinking that there should be freedom to experiment on children outside of clinical trials.

The studies are in - it’s not just the class review, it’s all the systematic evidence reviews done by Nordic countries , it’s European countries all rolling this back - there is no proof that puberty blockers and hormones and surgeries prevent suicide. This is a medical scandal.

It’s not - I put up and study and you put up a study and we have to call it even. We can actually read studies to think through whether we buy the methods or the interpretation. Or maybe they don’t teach that at university anymore. In any case your link leads to a self reported survey that still doesn’t support your point of view. If adult transgendered people are committing suicide despite transition - why is transitioning life saving care ?

That’s what the NCBI study showed - that suicidality doesn’t reduce after transition.

its not all happening in a vacuum. You have to ask what the diagnostic criteria are and if theyre actually helping us avoid medicalising regular kids who would grow up to be gay or lesbian.

Here are the diagnostic criteria from the american psychological association, 6 out of these 8 is supposed to indicate gender dysphoria in children:

- -A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
- -In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
- -A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
- -A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
- -A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
- -In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities
- -A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
- -A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender

Heres the link: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

now right away I think 6 of those 8 things are just- disagreeing with gender stereotypes. cross dressing in kids is very common. If youre a boy- your mom probably has some childhood photos of you where youre trying on her clothes or youre trying on make up or something. If youre a girl- you probably remember being a kid and thinking frilly dresses are scratchy and wanting to wear boy clothes cause theyre easy to run around in.
strong preference for cross gender roles in make believe? I liked being the husband when i played house with friends- The man got to do interesting things like go to work and come home and then demand that his wife do things for him. Who wouldnt want that? Im sure there are boys who were similarly drawn to being the woman because the kid playing the wife gets to run around in the kitchen set and play with baby dolls . That doesnt prove that someone is trans- these are kids!- theyre literally playing pretend!
preference of playmates of the other gender! so little boys and little girls cant want to play with each other! most of my play mates were male! they were my best friends cause they liked the same cartoons and they were roughly my size and in my locality- thats all it takes for kids to make someone their best friend.
Boys avoiding rough and tumble play and girls not wanting to do feminine play? are we joking? some boys just dont like getting hurt- most kids dont like getting hurt. Most girls I knew would rather be out riding their bikes than sitting at home pouring tea. this is again- adherence to stereotypes.
Young girls and boys dont know what their sexual anatomy is about- unless theyve been told its dirty by the elders in their house or unless theyve been molested- they likely wouldnt feel any disgust at their private parts. I didnt know what man parts looked like until I was quite a bit older- I bet most children dont know what the opposite sex's private parts look like. So its not some inner sense of "oh I should have a penis instead of a vagina". Children dont think that clearly. but according to the DSM 5 this is a diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in kids too.

6 out of these 8- you can just get that by being a gay, lesbian, autistic, wild kid who doesnt like stereotypical things- its called having a personality. Not liking ones private parts can be an indication of abuse and is likely that far more than some inner gender soul.

But this is what all of "youth gender medicine" is built on. You meet 6/8 of these criteria- you get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria , you get put on puberty blockers, then 98% of the time you get moved on to cross sex hormones and then surgeries. Of course youre gonna have misdiagnosed a lot of kids. Of course the detrans rates are booming. this is not medical diagnosis- this is reading tea leaves. based on this we're supposed to be giving cancer drugs and castration drugs to young children who dont know and cannot understand what the consequences for their health and lifestyle would be?

Gender identity and dysphoria is supposed to be this mystical inexplicable thing- and its "reductive" to say its about stereotypes- but the DSM criteria sure seem to be based on stereotypes no?

its insane. Read the cass review. its long but its worth it. Listen to the shellenberger tapes on wpath and listen to people who left tavistock clinic under protest. The doctors knew what was going on- they were joking about transing the gay away.

so when you talk about poor stunning brave transwomen and nbs who are hurt by institutions its not propaganda- but when women put together after years of hard work the evidence of crimes committed against them- thats rage bait? thats made by a bot? do you have any proof reduxx articles are written by a bot or are false? or do you just assume its untrue cause women be crazy?

Did you even think for a second? " oh its much worse than i imagined"? " oh I didnt know this was a thing?"

the "crap" was in reference to the medical scandals, the sterlisations, the destruction of womens rights and safety, the child abuse. That you choose to tone police over that instead of seriously re-evaluating your world view and expressing shock that the problem was so bad indicates that youre the person who has to consider whether theyre being open minded.

You know pick-me behaviour refers to patriarchal men and no one is more transphobic than patriarchal men right?

I've never heard of anyone being called transphobic for exercising their autonomy over who they want to have sex with. So bizarre. These projections often are.

Pick me behavior refers to women who find it easier to cater to males and their feelings to gain advantages in social settings rather than to stand up for all women. Thats what youre doing. Left wing men are still men honey- theyre just as capable of being patriarchal.

The existence of religious nuts who hate your religion doesnt surprise me. The existence of men who hate trans people doesnt surprise me. Just because those guys are against some group doesnt mean we should all join teams. Women can think for themselves and arrive at their own positions about what is best for women.

Youve never heard of it doesnt mean it hasnt happened? Please go to these trans orgs and ask about what "genital preferences" are and whether theyre transphobic? Please go to everyday feminism that cheer leaded this crap. Please google "cotton ceiling". Its not projection because its inconvenient to your world view. Why do you think Gays and Lesbians are disassociating themselves from the gender ideology movement? because if sex is not real and doesnt matter then there can be no homosexuality. Please read the people I cited- Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, please watch Magdalene Berns' videos. Please look up what happened to Katie Herzog. Please open your eyes and go read about the Tickle v Giggle case. Theyre literally arguing lesbians cannot have a lesbian only dating app without including male-bodied people.

Op here, I actually have been called transphobic by a non-binary friend for exactly this. They asked me, "Would you date a trans man?" And I answered with a vague "I don't know... " and they immediately went "If you're a straight woman you have to date trans men, it's extremely transphobic to not be willing to date trans men."

Now, I acknowledge what other people have said, that letting resentment build and then saying hostile things anonymously is not helping anyone. It's possible that the non-binary people I know are just bad people, and not necessarily because of their gender. This thread has given me a lot to think about and read up on.

I don't fully know what my stance is on this issue. I still think that there's a large overlap between difficult mental illnesses like bpd (really hard for the people around them to handle!) and identifying as non-binary. Whether one causes the other, I have no idea. Not my place to comment on this, I understand.

I'm less angry now than when I first started this thread, time and space really helps. Anyway, thank you to everyone who gave me perspective! Some of the recommendations of material to read has been really illuminating. @LI I'm sorry this thread became an extremely angry and hostile space, I honestly wasn't trying to stir up some controversy. Surrounded by enough drama as it is, definitely don't want more.

Where they are coming from is probably how any minority feels when they are sexually shunned. But they should not have said that to you. Personally, I had a wake up call when a friend pointed out that the people I seem to prefer are all upper caste, but they just observed it without calling me casteist. The observation made me reflect and over time change.

You'll do fine OP. It can be difficult to filter out emotions triggered by other people's lashing out and it is human to want to protect oneself. You are already getting there. Remember that you can work to understand why they are angry and where they are coming from without presenting yourself as a target for their anger. I think you are a kind person that hope that you run into more people who see and value your kindness.

It’s not the same thing.- one is a sexuality. In any case women shouldn’t be obligated to date anyone they don’t want to for any reason. Whether that’s people outside their caste or people inside their caste or males or females. Sexuality is a thing and it’s incredibly homophobic and misogynistic to think that it can be changed by guilt and manipulation. And if anything womens liberation is the goal of the feminist movement.

It’s not kind to erase yourself and your own experiences or to pour all your sympathy into people who do not care for you. Women do not exist to be therapists and to provide absolution to people who do not like them.

Freedom has to mean freedom for women - straight and gay to choose for themselves without coercion who they love.

The right wing sees women as private property and the left sees them as public property. We are neither. We’re fully human.

The idea that it’s womens job to bring about a revolution by changing who they date or hook up with or marry, and that they are incumbent to do so on behalf of your pet causes is misogynistic- it denies female liberation. None of these people are asking men to change their sexuality or their dating preferences. None of these people are calling men bigots for dating who they date. They only go after women because these new ideas are very much like old ideas that tried to control female sexuality. Women are not a public resource to be distributed and redistributed according to current thinking.

I really worry that young women don’t have the backbone to resist this and are instead so keen to please others and appear virtuous that they don’t stand up for themselves and their freedoms. Female socialisation is a dangerous thing. Even now you think it’s more important to be kind and understanding to other people than to be kind and understanding to yourselves or other women.

Ambedkar didn’t believe in forcing Brahmin girls to feel guilty about who they married. He believed in liberating all women to marry outside their caste by changing laws that punished exogamous marriages. He understood womens preferences were not because they were evil bigots. That they had a right to those preferences because it was their body- and sought to change those preferences by changing society in how it constrains women. That’s a very different stance than that idiot on twitter telling upper caste women they owe him sex and dates while barely masking his own misogyny.

What is this question supposed to prove? Im dark skinned- do you think I want men to be guilted or manipulated into dating me despite their preferences? Do you think I go around calling them bigoted for not wanting to date me? I have some self respect. I dont go around trying to force men to date me who would rather not. For any reason. If someone doesnt want me why the hell would I want them? There are plenty of people who dont think the color of my skin is offensive, ive actually never been in a situation where ive wanted someone and they were put off by my skin color. Its only incels that try to guilt women into having sex with them who would rather not. them and transwomen.

Besides skin color isnt a sexuality. Im a woman- i dont think black men are inherently unattractive, many of them are, many white people are attractive, many asians- whatever. Individual people from across different races are unattractive too. Thats just me though. If thats not what it is for you- have at it. Why would I want to force men into dating women they dislike? That is just putting those women in danger.

Just because they’re a minority or “oppressed” doesn’t make it valid. Incels think they’re owed women because they’re “sexually shunned”. Women don’t owe it to anyone to make them feel better by letting them use their bodies as a validation machine.

If trans lesbians are women they can date themselves - why do they need actual old school lesbians to date and have sex with their male bodies for validation? If trans men are men - is that why no means no is hard for them to understand ? Why do they think it’s the job of straight women to repress their sexuality to affirm trans mens masculinity ?

In any situation in life if you feel yourself aligning with people who would argue that wants to control female sexuality in this way- you should reconsider your worldview.

Just on that last bit. Here are some links for your education. Dont say it doesnt happen if you choose not to read them/ watch them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5FFGrGzJw&ab_channel=MagdalenBerns

https://www.reddit.com/user/KatnissXcis/comments/190mz8v/genital_preference_isnt_valid/

https://womensdeclarationusa.com/why-are-lesbians-hated/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhWyo9iYQNE&ab_channel=PeterBoghossian

Here are some ways in which some people on tumblr fantasize about correcting this transphobia. If you can swallow it. You swallow it. Dont tell us its not happening though. Thats just gaslighting. Its really really graphic and disgusting. But dont tell me its unhealthy/bigoted that I know this because I have bothered to actually look stuff up. I wish I didnt have to know this- I wish this didnt exist. But Im forced to prove it exists because you refuse to believe women.

https://www.tumblr.com/runawaysiren940/749563581300883456?source=share
https://www.tumblr.com/barbarian-lesbian/745346296204886016/radfem-who-used-to-get-angry-when-she-saw-trans?source=share
https://www.tumblr.com/barbarian-lesbian/725123857978130432?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/subnosis22/726990172837888000/a-prestigious-college-exclusively-for-transwomen?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/puppygirllaika/749592038536806400/last-chance-to-back-out-are-you-absolutely-sure?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/dawn-the-breeder/748657264529932288/im-convinced-that-there-are-few-things-better?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/hormone-of-babylon/738904519454392321/i-love-it-when-conservatives-and-terfs-freak-about?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/butch-patriarchy/722417869667893248/personally-i-think-trans-men-should-be-allowed-to?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/butch-patriarchy/720177077837578240/trans-men-are-the-masculine-ideal-were-whove?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/superiorineveryway/731004003876552704/the-ftm-need-to-smother-a-cis-man-with-my-ass?source=share

if you are a woman- you by definition identify with the binary. Which means sex based stereotypes ring true to you. No wonder you think women are irrational because they get periods- as opposed to understanding that periods are a sign of a healthy female body.

If you accept those binaries and stereotypes so much- no wonder you think anyone claiming theyre not women- non binaries and natal men- no wonder you think theyre all superior wonderful souls and all the women who disagree with the stereotypes should be shut up and shamed for being evil bigoted witches. That makes complete sense. I suggest you perform your gender then and go back to the kitchen and make some sandwiches. The rest of us- rebellious women, women who have no time to cater our feminism to please men- have real fights to fight.

You have no idea the struggles women have had to go through to get into education and employment- chief among them- the struggle to get sex segregated bathrooms at work and in schools. You know what happens when you allow male bodied people to go into a women only space because they have a different gendered soul? because they wore a dress that day? that ceases to be a female only space. You know what that means? fewer young girls will be allowed to go to school or to university or to work. Fewer women will have that ability because male pattern violence and criminality are a thing in the material world. We dont get to identify our way out of our bodies, or out of historically proven trends in criminality. the rights of women depend existentially on recognising that sex matters.

You think we're pulling the ladder up because you think women are already at the top of the ladder and at the bottom are the nonbinaries and trans people. women- female people- are the ones who are violated and abused and exploited beyond recognition in this world. not because someone uses the wrong pronouns or doesnt believe their philosophical views- because their actual bodies are tortured. There was a 15 year old girl not two days ago who was beheaded by her much "fiance" because she passed her tenth board exams and wanted to study further. She was the only girl from her village to even be allowed to write the exam. You think he murdered her because of her feminine soul or behaviour? he murdered her because she was born female and she had the audacity to want an education. Because he was entitled to her body and her service. And poor women suffer the most. Poor women who end up going to prison for petty theft and for economic crimes are locked in with gender specials who have raped and impregnated them.Poor women who need to be able to avail of sex segregated schools and bathrooms and reservations and all other sex based protections- but you dont care about them. You think women are the oppressors because they think sex matters. They should just reframe their trauma and go to therapy right? What a singularly unempathetic world view.

You want us to think all non-binary people are super empaths who couldnt do anything wrong because theyve gone to therapy? and so women shouldnt have any objection to losing their language and their sex based rights to them? How many non-binary identified criminals will change your mind? Alok Vaid Menon claiming little girls are kinky and saying we should queer childhood- that doesnt make you uncomfortable? what about the rapist of loudon county? what about the audrey hales of the world who shoot up people? What about andrea long chu saying "f**ked is what a female is" and literally defining women by their submission to men? How many material things in the real world have to happen for you to think material reality- sex matters? Go to terf is a slur dot com- tell me how many punch a terf,kill a terf, terfs can choke on my girldi*k type comments are made by perfectly harmless gender specials. Who exactly is pulling the ladder up behind whom here?

You being class privileged have reaped the rewards of sex based protections in your life. Thank god men in bars you wanted to get away from couldnt follow you in there because they claimed non-binary. Thank god you were not told you had to reframe your trauma and instead got to decide whether you wanted a male or female gynaecologist. Thank god when women in your family were admitted to hospitals- they could be safe in the female only ward instead of being assaulted when they were weak. Thank god the old feminists you hate so much fought for your rights.

And now you want to pull the ladder up so that women who are poorer than you- who are not as privileged- cannot have those same sex based protections. Because you want everyone to think youre so brilliant for citing judith freaking butler and cottoning on to the cause du jour and the new trendy social justice thing. You want to be seen as kind as opposed to actually being kind.

Work on your internalised misogyny.

You know that non binary thinking recognises men and women right? And more? I guess exclusionary thinkers can find that hard to imagine.

Just to say I love all the assumptions here and am not surprised that you can't understand irony or sarcasm. I'll leave you to your fearful life, which is perhaps all some people will learn about feminism. Some of us will continue to believe that "no one of us can be free until everybody is free".

Non binary thinking posits that we define the words "woman" and "man" not by sex- but by some adherence to gender stereotypes or a gendered soul. It absolutely posits that women and men are real only if they also feel a fealty to those gender stereotypes. Sex is irrelevant as your pope Judith Butler says.

Ive not made half the assumptions youve made about me. Run away because you cannot hold your own in an argument. Rational fears about womens rights and freedoms doesnt mean that the feminist project is inherently limited. Freedom to what is the problem. Not freedom as an abstract concept.

OP- im sorry about the mod here. and Im sorry you have to deal with being accused of a bigot to ask very obvious questions and having a very human experience. Youve done nothing bigoted. Youre clearly just concerned about what you see around you. There are more people just like you. I dont recommend putting yourself in a bubble informationally- but if you want to reach out for support- fourthwavewomen subreddit, Ovarit, saidit, and mumsnet uk are all good places to start. You might find reading Lionel Shrivers new dystopian fiction- Mania- cathartic to read.